Multivariate Calculation of Psychological Carrying Capacity of Ecotourism Community Residents Based on Interactive Emotional Cognitive Framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As one of the important stakeholders in ecotourism, community residents play a crucial role in ecotourism development.This study takes interactive emotional cognition, social exchange theory and the concept of psychological carrying capacity as the guiding theories, and designs the community residents' questionnaire from the aspects of emotional cognition and psychological carrying capacity, respectively.Correlation analysis and regression modeling were used to test the influence of interactive emotional cognition on the psychological carrying capacity of ecotourism community residents.The calculation results show that the psychological carrying capacity of ecotourism community residents is positively correlated with positive interactive emotional cognition (r>0) and negatively correlated with negative interactive emotional cognition (r<0).It was also found that community residents' proud emotional perception of tourism development had the highest degree of influence on the psychological adjustment capacity variable (R²=0.299).This study verifies the mechanism of community residents' interactive emotional cognition on their psychological carrying capacity and enriches the theoretical research on promoting ecotourism development.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".