Coupling Coordination Between Rural Digitalization and Rural Tourism: Evidence from 253 Counties in China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rural digitalization and rural tourism are important tasks to achieve the goal of rural revitalization strategy, and researching whether there is a connection between them and the degree of association is helpful to accelerate the transformation of rural digitalization and promote the quality and upgrading of rural tourism.This paper constructs an evaluation system of rural digitalization and rural tourism, adopting 253 counties in China as samples to measure the development differences between regions of the two systems.A coupled coordination model is applied to explore the relationship between the two systems and reveals the distribution characteristics of the level of coupling and coordination in China.The findings show that the difference in the overall score of rural digitalization between counties is greater than that of rural tourism industry.There is a high degree of coupling between rural digitalization and rural tourism systems, and the two systems are currently at a barely coordinated stage in China.In addition, the degree of coordination varies significantly between counties, presenting a phenomenon of higher coupling coordination in the eastern coastal region, intermediate in the central and western inland regions, and lower in the northwest.This paper supports and validates some results of rural development projects in the research area to provide theoretical and decision support for coordinating rural digitalization and rural tourism services.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".