“The students swarm to these peaceful shores in droves”: An Historical Overview of the Postwar Spring Break Phenomenon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AbstractDespite the cultural and economic influence of Spring Break, and the fact that it has become asignificant area of study in other fields of research such as psychology, sociology, college health,and business and marketing, historians have largely overlooked the phenomenon. This articleprovides an overview of Spring Break’s postwar history by focusing primarily upon developmentsin the American Southeast, especially Fort Lauderdale, Daytona Beach and Atlanta. Inbridging the histories of higher education and tourism we focus on three key developments:tensions between visiting students and host communities, commercialization and corporatization,and the racial dynamics of Spring Break. In our conclusion we briefly examine the phenomenonof “alternative” Spring Breaks and offer reflections on Spring Break’s overall historicalsignificance.RésuméMalgré l’influence culturelle et économique de la semaine de relâche universitaire, le « SpringBreak » et le fait que de nombreux chercheurs en psychologie, sociologie, santé des étudiantsuniversitaires, commerce et publicité s’y soient intéressés, les historiens ont négligé ce phénomène.Cet article fournit une vue d’ensemble de l’histoire de la semaine de relâche dans lapériode d’après-guerre, centrée sur le déroulement des activités dans le sud-est des États-Uniset, en particulier, Fort Lauderdale, Daytona Beach et Atlanta. Nous effectuons un rapprochemententre l’histoire de l’enseignement supérieur et celle du tourisme et nous mettonsl’accent sur trois aspects clés de l’événement : les tensions entre les étudiants en vacances et lescommunautés hôtes, la commercialisation et le corporatisme et enfin la dynamique raciale dela semaine de relâche. Dans notre conclusion, nous considérons le phénomène des semaines derelâche « alternatives » et nous réfléchissons sur l’importance historique du « Spring Break ».
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
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".