MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4315702283 · doi:10.1080/09640568.2022.2156852

Ecological footprint analysis of tourism management in rural areas

2023· article· en· W4315702283 on OpenAlex
Kyoumars Habibi, Milad Pira, Arman Rahimi, Golshan Hemmati, Hooshmand Alizadeh

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Planning and Management · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Transport and Accessibility
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEcological footprintTourismEnvironmental resource managementGeographyEnvironmental planningBusinessFootprintRural tourismNatural resource economicsEcologySustainabilityEnvironmental scienceTourism geographyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ecological footprint analysis is one of the most useful models for the environmental impact assessment of human activities. This research aimed to estimate the environmental impacts of the tourism industry on Hosainabad village, Kurdistan Province, Iran by using the ecological footprint model. A descriptive-analytical method is used based on documentary library studies as well as field surveys. The statistical population for this study is the number of tourists who visited Hosainabad village in 2018. The findings show that the tourism ecological footprint in Hosainabad village in food, transportation, heating, water, electricity, and waste generation groups was 0.994 hectares) per capita). Comparing this amount with its surrounding spaces indicates that the tourism industry in Hosainabad relies on an area beyond this village to meet its biological needs and environmental sustainability. Findings suggest that decision-makers must pay enough attention to tourists’ activities in small areas in order to prevent further environmental disruption.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.272

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.265 · 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