A landscape...with figures: tourism and environment on Prince Edward Island
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Its pastoral landscape has long permeated Prince Edward Island’s tourist appeal and shaped its cultural identity. Nineteenth-century tourist promotion extolled the health benefits of sea breezes for travellers fleeing the summer swelter of urban America but, by the interwar period, tourism literature had begun to equate the Island’s arcadian countryside with a pre-industrial, rural order. Post-war tourism marketing continued to eulogize the Island as an antidote to North Americans’ urban-industrial angst, but in the new millennium both the commodified pastoral landscape and rural identity faced a new challenge as economic pressures drove most farmers out of business. Resume Ses paysages bucoliques ont longtemps impregne l’attrait touristique de l’Ile-du-Prince-Edouard et faconne son identite culturelle. Au 19e siecle, les campagnes de promotion touristique vantaient les bienfaits de la brise maritime pour la sante des voyageurs fuyant la chaleur ecrasante qui regnait l’ete dans les villes americaines mais, dans l’entre-deux-guerres, la documentation touristique commencait a assimiler les paysages arcadiens de l’Ile a un ordre rural pre-industriel. Le marketing touristique de l’apres-guerre continua de faire l’eloge de l’Ile comme un antidote a l’angoisse existentielle des milieux urbains et industriels de l’Amerique du Nord. Toutefois, avec le nouveau millenaire, les paysages bucoliques et l’identite rurale en tant que marchandise ont fait face a un nouveau defi a mesure que les pressions economiques acculaient la plupart des agriculteurs a la faillite.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".