Local Tourism? Why Not! Integrating Tourism Geographic Spatial in Ngawi Regency, Indonesia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ngawi Regency has a diversity of tourist destinations supported by the accessibility of strategic areas, but there are problems in the form of tourist visits opportunity that are still not optimal. The strategy that must be carried out is to design a tourist destination design in a strategic access corridor between the Special Region of Yogyakarta (DIY), Solo, Ngawi, and Surabaya (Yogya-Solo-Ngawi-Surabaya) and open access to local tourism information. This strategy is also applied on the basis of the strategic accessibility of Ngawi Regency which is located between the northern coast lines that connect various tourist attractions. The purpose of this study is to map each area of tourist destinations and connectivity within an integrated area, and; designing a spatial structuring model for integrated tourist destination areas in Ngawi Regency. The series is arranged in the corridor of tourist paths in Yogya-Solo-Ngawi-Surabaya. The method used in the study is a qualitative approach. Data collection is done through observation, in-depth interviews, descriptive statistical data, and documentation. The study results show that there are opportunities in the form of 9 development tourism destinations to be integrated in the Yogya-Solo-Ngawi-Surabaya tourism corridor. Integration is carried out in the tourist destination system in the districts: Karang Jati, Padas, Ngawi, Widodaren, Mantingan (Jatipangawitan). While in the spatial development policy of the Jogya-Solo-Ngawi-Surabaya corridor tourist area, components of tourism products are offered consisting of cultural attractions (3 main dances), accessibility (facilities and infrastructure), amenities (culinary, hotel, souvenirs), and activities (5 tour packages) that are developed according to the demand and dynamics of tourism in Indonesia.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".