MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413288550 · doi:10.1079/tourism.2025.0041

Generation Gap – Balancing Cultural and Economic Issues for Indigenous Tourism

2025· article· en· W4413288550 on OpenAlexaffabout
Pawan Chugh, Hayden McDonald, Darrell Beaulieu

Bibliographic record

VenueTourism Cases · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiverse Aspects of Tourism Research
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Circumpolar Health Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousTourismPolitical scienceSociologyDevelopment economicsEconomicsEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Technology plays a critical role in supporting tourism development. Technologies such as data analytics and social media tools can enhance tourism by providing customers with increased accessibility, information, and personalisation. Further research should examine Indigenous tourism operations and their interdependence with technology. This study explores the use of technology to enhance tourism development in Indigenous communities. It explores how technology enhances tourism development in a small, remote Indigenous community of Fort Liard, Canada (situated in the Dehcho Region in the south-west corner of the North-west Territories). Data was collected through observations and semi-structured interviews with key informants and subsequently analysed. The study confirms that technology use in tourism is beneficial to Indigenous communities. Technology is a channel for understanding traditional cultural ways of life and motivates Indigenous tourism development. Digital platforms and e-commerce amplify the global visibility of Indigenous arts. The platforms enable tourists to purchase directly from Indigenous artists, ensuring that profits go directly to them. Additionally, technology is leveraged to enrich cultural knowledge. Thus, the way Indigenous people within the tourism sector utilise technology offers direct benefits for the sustainable development of Indigenous communities. Information © The Authors 2025

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.986

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.077
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.317 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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