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 OpenAlexaff
Kyoumars Habibi, Milad Pira, Arman Rahimi, Golshan Hemmati, Hooshmand Alizadeh

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.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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

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 designObservational
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

Citations6
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Environmental Planning and ManagementSame topicUrban Transport and AccessibilityFrench-language works237,207