Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) and Natural Resources: Blessing or Curse? Empirical Evidence from the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
O estudo de casos de sistemas turísticos e enclaves teve como objetivo comparar situações de desenvolvimento e suas perspectivas do ponto de vista da sustentabilidade. O produto deste trabalho alimentou uma posterior discussão aplicada aos casos dos nossos sistemas turísticos da Serrada Bodoquena e Pantanal. Os sistemas analisados são os do México e Costa Rica, que com seus diferentes estágios de seu ciclo de vida mantêm lições a serem consideradas. Os exemplos de México e Costa Rica são os mais discutidos por explorarem o turismo alternativo e o turismo ecológico, além de sua semelhança com o Brasil. O método de trabalho fundamentou-se em bases secundárias e foi dividida em uma visão das potencialidades turísticas, suas gestões, seus problemas e as suas perspectivas de futuro. Ao final se discutiu, à luz destes casos, padrões de crescimento e efeitos sobre a sustentabilidade dos sistemas turísticos.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".