MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

For and by the People? Internal Versus External Slum Tourism Entrepreneurs’ Impacts

2024· article· en· W4402202181 on OpenAlexaff
Norrin Halilem, Balla Diop, Anne-Lise Pasquier-Fay

Bibliographic record

VenueTourism Analysis · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiverse Aspects of Tourism Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTourismSlumBusinessMarketingEconomic geographyGeographySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The controversial impacts of slum tourism have sparked debate and raised questions about its benefits for impoverished communities. The potential positive effects of slum tourism often hinge on “last mile” strategies and the crucial role of local entrepreneurs who manage the visits and interactions in determining the benefits to these areas. Drawing on a blend of Social Entrepreneurship Theory and Economic Development Theory, we explore and compare the contributions of both internal and external slum tourism entrepreneurs. Our findings reveal striking differences in their strategies and orientations. For example, internal entrepreneurs are deeply rooted in the focal slum and prioritize long-term poverty alleviation through the creation of permanent jobs and innovative approaches, whereas external entrepreneurs tend to focus on profit maximization and diversification of their offer outside the slums. However, both internal and external entrepreneurs actively challenge stereotypes, catalyze skills’ development, and channel resources back into the slum communities. This research sheds light on the multifaceted impacts of slum tourism entrepreneurship, providing critical insights for future endeavors in community development and slum tourism studies.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0000.005
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.322 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTourism AnalysisSame topicDiverse Aspects of Tourism ResearchFrench-language works237,207