MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6989930911

Conceptualising integrated rural tourism.

2007· article· en· W6989930911 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueLancaster EPrints (Lancaster University) · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRural development and sustainability
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersTrent UniversityHigher Education Funding Council for WalesNottingham Trent University
KeywordsTourismContext (archaeology)Rural tourismCommodityConsumption (sociology)Argument (complex analysis)Tourism geographyProduction (economics)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rural spaces are no longer associated purely with agricultural commodity production but are seen as locations for the stimulation of new socioeconomic activity, often incorporating tourism, leisure, speciality food production and consumption and e-commerce. Within the context of debates about integrated and territorial approaches to rural development in Europe�s �lagging regions�, this paper introduces the notion of �Integrated Rural Tourism� (IRT) and describes the various methods of research used in an EU research project that forms the basis of this special edition. IRT is theorised as tourism explicitly linked to the economic, social, cultural, natural and human structures of the localities in which it takes place. The argument is that IRT � as a theory and approach � leads to more sustainable tourism (broadly conceived) than other forms of tourism because it creates powerful network connections between social, cultural, economic and environmental resources. The notion of IRT is also intended to open up practical ways of thinking about improving linkages between tourism and local and regional resources, activities, products and communities in the light of changing trends in tourism demand.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.174
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.180 · 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.

Study designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLancaster EPrints (Lancaster University)Same topicRural development and sustainabilityFrench-language works237,207