Deliverable 7.1: Policy Recommendations For Research And Innovation Policies In Relation To Sustainable Cultural & Creative Tourism In Rural And Remote Areas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rural and remote areas across Europe are rich in cultural and natural heritage but many face significant socio-economic challenges, including ageing populations, youth out-migration, limited economic opportunities, and skill shortages.EU policy frameworks, from the Agenda for Tourism 2030 to the Rural Vision 2040, increasingly reflect this by integrating cultural tourism into action plans for sustainability and cohesion.Cultural and creative tourism is seen as an activity that can create value from local heritage, stimulating economic diversification, and enhancing community identity and cohesion.However, there are several research gaps that must be addressed to fully harness the potential of cultural and creative tourism for sustainable rural development.Firstly, cultural heritage within rural and remote areas is highly varied, making generic development approaches unsuitable.Although numerous business models exist, there is insufficient understanding regarding which models best fit specific types of tangible and intangible heritage across diverse rural contexts.
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 | 0.043 | 0.119 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.347 | 0.187 |
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".