MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402540833 · doi:10.29303/jppipa.v10i8.8376

Ecotourism as Tourist Attraction Development: Systematic Literature Review

2024· article· en· W4402540833 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sumihar Sebastiana Sitompul

Bibliographic record

VenueJurnal Penelitian Pendidikan IPA · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiverse Aspects of Tourism Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTourist attractionEcotourismTourismAttractionGeographyPhilosophyArchaeologyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ecotourism is a form or concept of special interest tourism because it can be said to be the opposite of mass or conventional tourism. In managing ecotourism, nature and its environment are the main resources that must be managed carefully. The Quebec Declaration explains that ecotourism is a form of tourism that adopts the principles of sustainable tourism which differentiates it from other forms of tourism. In practice, it can be seen in the form of tourism that actively contributes to nature and cultural conservation activities, involves local communities in planning, developing, and managing tourism and makes a positive contribution to their welfare, and is carried out in the form of independent tourism or organized in the form of small groups. Where is the research objective? is to study ecotourism as tourist attraction development: Systematic Literature Review. This review was conducted based on state-of-the-art methods using the preferred reporting items for reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The results of this research explain that there are several principles for developing ecotourism, namely conservation principles, community participation principles, and economic principles; The impact of ecotourism development, namely: The impact of ecotourism on social aspects, The impact of ecotourism on economic aspects and the Ecotourism development strategy, namely: Identifying factors that influence the development of ecotourism, Determining several key factors in ecotourism development which are studied based on discussions with ecotourism experts, institutional experts and study of literature.”

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.725
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.007

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.328 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJurnal Penelitian Pendidikan IPASame topicDiverse Aspects of Tourism ResearchFrench-language works237,207