Predicting determinant factors and development strategy for tourist villages
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tourist village program is one development priority program for rural development. Despite numerous opportunities to develop tourist villages such as the availability of natural resources and high demand for tourist villages recently, some challenges are still faced to develop tourist villages, especially in a developing country such as Indonesia. Governance problems, infrastructure, and effective partnership are among other factors that remain challenging in developing tourist villages. This study attempts to identify factors that determine the state of tourist villages in Indonesia and determine the appropriate strategies for better tourist village development. Using the case of tourist villages in Kedung Ombo, Central Java, a water based attractive tourist village, this study uses both machine learning and multicriteria approaches by means of Promethee in order to address the objective of the study. This study shows that government support, application of information technology, infrastructure, local participation, partnership, and attractive variations, are among the determinant factors that affect tourist village development. The study also reveals that the appropriate strategies for tourist village development include, improving infrastructure, institutional strengthening, and capacity building. This study could be used to assist local national as well as sub-national governments to effectively manage tourist villages 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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".