MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7100811794

BRIDGING THE TOURISM PLANNING GAP: CREATING A REGIONAL RURAL TOURISM PLANNING ALLIANCE FOR COMMUNITIES-IN- TRANSITION ON VANCOUVER ISLAND

2015· article· en· W7100811794 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicNuclear Structure and Function
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTourismBoomTourism geographyRural tourismAllianceEcotourismBridging (networking)Rural area
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent decades, rural Vancouver Island has witnessed dramatic decline in its traditionally dominant economic sectors of forestry and fisheries and major growth in its service industry sectors, especially tourism (Robinson and Mazzoni, 2004; Vaugeois, 2003). However, while a local economy driven by tourism appears as an attractive escape from the boom and bust cycle of resource dependency, the particularities of rural communities-in-transition (RCIT) and the volatile and often ecologically and culturally damaging nature of the tourism industry itself present challenges in the quest for a viable, community driven tourism product (Robinson & Twynam, 1997; Swarbrooke, 2000). From an industry perspective, the potential for rural tourism development on Vancouver Island- and across Canada- has not yet been fully realized. At the same time, however, many rural areas are under-serviced, lack adequate planning systems or the capacities needed to embark on the development of a new and often misunderstood industry. Local planning, and tourism planning support from applied research teams, take on a new importance when small communities are confronted with changes that are beyond local capacities to significantly influence. If Canada wishes to maintain rural

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 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 score0.214
Threshold uncertainty score0.402

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.238 · 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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNuclear Structure and FunctionFrench-language works237,207