MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281720336 · doi:10.3390/jrfm15060264

Peculiarities of Sustainable Cultural Development: A Case of Dark Tourism in Lithuania

2022· article· en· W4281720336 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Virginija Jurėnienė, Martynas Radzevičius

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligious Tourism and Spaces
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTourismDark tourismTourism geographySustainable tourismSustainable developmentEcotourismBusinessCultural heritagePolitical scienceRegional scienceEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental planningGeographyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this article is to reveal the connection and significance of the concepts of dark tourism and sustainable tourism for the sustainable development of tourism, especially for regional tourism growth. The article discusses the theoretical aspects of dark tourism and details the aspects of this tourism industry as part of cultural tourism. The article also analyses principles and models of sustainable tourism development, with a stronger focus on the integrated development paradigm. As a relatively significant part of the research and analysis of sustainable tourism is more focused on the challenges posed by global mass tourism, this article focuses on the issues of sustainable development of niche tourism in relation to regional tourism. The article presents the analysis of Lithuanian dark tourism resources, presents the most common dark (dissonant) heritage objects, as well as the evaluation of resources according to the spectrum of dark tourism and the comparative analysis of the country’s most popular dark tourism objects from the point of view of sustainable tourism. A qualitative study revealed that regional tourism in Lithuania (especially niche, such as dark tourism) lacks integrity among different stakeholders, especially in involving the local community in the processes of cultural heritage protection and cultural tourism development and in developing more intensive links with the private sector. On the other hand, the analysis also revealed that there is an ambiguous public opinion regarding the dark heritage, which does not contribute to the sustainable development of tourism and the actualization of such heritage. The article also discusses the models of sustainable development of dark tourism and invites to discuss how to encourage greater public involvement in the development of dark tourism as part of cultural tourism, so that the principle of sustainable tourism does not remain an empty declaration.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0100.007
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.232 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations24
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicReligious Tourism and SpacesFrench-language works237,207