Residents’ support for tourism development: Investigating quality-of-life, community commitment, and communication
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
This study argues that when overall tourism impacts are positive, residents’ quality of life (QOL) increases, thereby positively affecting their attitudes towards tourism initiatives. The study also identifies several other important relationships that have been ignored in the literature. First, QOL may be a crucial push factor for community commitment, which in turn can trigger support for additional tourism development. Second, communication with tourists may moderate the links between QOL, community commitment, and tourism support. Data were collected from 468 residents living in Manavgat, Turkey and analyzed using structural equation modeling and Hayes’s PROCESS macro. The findings show that as the perception of the positive effects of tourism increases, opinions about the QOL will also be optimistic. Importantly, QOL strengthens both tourism support and community commitment. Additionally, community commitment mediates the link between QOL and attitudes towards tourism development. Finally, community commitment increases support for tourism, which is stronger for residents who communicate more with tourists.
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 | 0.074 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it