Bibliographic record
Abstract
In many rural Atlantic Canadian communities, local economic development conversations have zeroed in on growing and supporting tourism as a key strategy to improve local economic indicators, nourish local businesses, raise incomes and create jobs. Indeed, across several qualitative studies, we have found that informants contemplating opportunities for development in their local communities tend to reach for tourism first, expressing a desire to “market” the good things about their area to “attract” tourists and their spending. In this paper, we explore some of the qualitative data that displays such tendencies, and consider why tourism occupies this place of primacy in peoples’ thoughts about rural development and sustainability. We ask, further, whether the hope attached to tourism is warranted. To that end, we view rural tourism through a political economy lens, asking: whose interests are served, and in what ways, when tourism is used to bring economic activity to rural communities? By what relations of power and historical precedents do communities find themselves with tourism as the best or most obvious local development option? Does tourism bring local communities more or less control over their economic affairs?
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".