Analisis Penawaran dan Permintaan Pariwisata (Studi Kasus di Desa Wisata Tipang Kecamatan Baktiraja Sumatera Utara)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research intends to examine the availability and state of tourism supply and demand components in Tipang Tourism Village, Baktiraja Sub-district, to support or facilitate the development/growth of tourism villages. Tipang Tourism Village has considerable potential, but tourism development in this area still faces various obstacles, including the low quality and availability of tourist support facilities. Analyzing supply and demand components is crucial for pinpointing areas that require enhancement. To attract more tourists and support local economic growth. The research method employed is a questionnaire survey of visiting tourists and direct observation of each tourism sub-component. The results show that the supply component in Tipang Tourism Village has a score of 32, which means that the supply component is not optimal in supporting the development of tourism villages. Conversely, the demand aspect has a score of 31, indicating inadequacy in supporting tourism development. The components with high scores in supporting development are Penatapan Gonting tourist attractions, places to eat/restaurants, private vehicles as modes of transportation, and social media as promotional media. Conversely, other components have a low value because they are less attractive to tourists, rarely visited, or have unsatisfactory conditions. According to the BCG matrix analysis, the position of tourism activities in Tipang Tourism Village is in the Dogs quadrant, which indicates low supply and demand. Therefore, substantial investment is required to increase market share and tourism growth.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".