Implementation Model of Community Based Tourism on Rural Tourism
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One effort of increasing rural economy can be conducted by developing rural tourism. Tourism sector is considered to be capable to encourage the development of other economy sectors. Tourism also contributes in increasing job opportunity and income. The bottom up planning paradigm expects the community to take roles as both subject and object of development. Dieng Plateau as a tourist attraction has various kinds of attractions. Rural tourism is designed by the local community to the tourist attraction in Dieng. This research aims at identifying how the implementation model of Community Based Tourism has been conducted to the development of Dieng Kulon rural tourism. This research is a qualitative one, which uses the primary data taken from Observation Technique and Focus Group Discussion. The analysis used in this research is descriptive qualitative and Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA). This research has found a model of Community-Based Tourism that has been conducted in the development of Dieng Kulon rural tourism through Pokdarwis (Tourism Awareness Group) and Pokja (Workgroup) establishment on eight fields. The Community Based Tourism model that has been tested and implemented in this research may complement the models in the previous research findings, which show the roles and functions of each actor of tourism development.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it