Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cultural tourism is increasingly recognized as an important motivation for international travelers in search of experiencing the cultural heritage, arts, philosophy and institutions of another region or country. The UNWTO reports that 37 % of all international trips include a cultural component and that cultural tourism is growing at 15 % annually. Creative tourism, a subset of cultural tourism, is one of these new forms of tourism. While cultural tourism is considered a passive observation of things of the past such as artifacts, creative tourism is the transfer of the past into the present and the future via communication between locals and visitors. This interest in participatory experiences is creating many challenges and opportunities for island destinations who have had to focus on their uniqueness to „create‟ attractions that attract visitors. On the island of Newfoundland, Canada, the French Shore Historical Society are developing new creative tourism products through local craft traditions in an effort to make connections on an emotional, physical and intellectual level with visitors. On Pašman Island, Croatia, the support of international tourism consultants is resulting in the development of four traditional, theme-based villages that will offer an authentic and traditional visitor experience that represents the Mediterranean way of life. This article will explore the challenges and opportunities in island destinations of planning and promoting creative tourism using participatory action research. Results will illustrate the important role of the public sector in providing assistance to creative tourism development, and the importance of island residents in taking advantage of local cultural and natural resources to generate local benefits that foster sustainability. For both the Island of Newfoundland and Pašman Island, creative tourism is providing a potential opportunity for a win-win-situation for local residents, if it is planned and developed properly.
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 | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.071 | 0.017 |
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".