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 OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.451
Threshold uncertainty score0.721

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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