Tour guides’ sustainable tourism practices in host-guest interactions: when Tibet meets the west
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
Purpose Tour guides play a significant role in sustainable tourism development as leaders, mediators, resource managers and promoters of economic prosperity. This paper aims to show how local Tibetan tour guides practice sustainable tourism in their encounters with Western tourists. Design/methodology/approach The data consists primarily of 15 in-depth interviews with native Tibetan guides,Content analysis of the data were undertaken. Findings It was found that the guides adopt sustainable tourism practices based on their local religious wisdom and experiences as they try to establish harmonious host–guest relationships. Western clients also encourage guides to adopt more proenvironmental behaviors. The “hosts” live by Buddhist concepts such as samsara that are in line with concepts such as altruism and benevolence. Most “guests” are well-behaved and try to build sincere mutual relationships with local people. Host and guest cocreate value for local sustainable tourism practice. Practical implications Tour guides can practice sustainable tourism in a leadership role or as mediators, resource managers or promoters of economic prosperity. They also maintain a sincere and kind relationship with their guests that goes beyond the instrumental host–guest relationship and might help to cocreate value for local sustainable tourism practices. Originality/value Tour guides’ sustainable practices have been examined in the past based on their roles as leader, mediator, resource manager and promoter of economic prosperity. But researchers have seldom examined circumstances in which the tourists and tour guides were from different cultures. This paper addresses this gap.
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 | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.001 |
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