Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le concept de destination fait l’objet d’une grande utilisation en tourisme, tant dans le monde professionnel que dans celui de la communauté scientifique. Cette situation montre toutefois un paradoxe : si l’on reconnaît la puissance du mot destination relative notamment à sa richesse anthropologique, l’on observera néanmoins un déficit définitionnel, voire l’absence d’une définition partagée par la communauté scientifique. À quelles significations renvoie le mot destination ? Le présent article expose les résultats d’une analyse sémantique et conceptuelle du concept de destination réalisée à partir d’un corpus d’écrits portant plus particulièrement sur le tourisme urbain. À la lumière de cette analyse, une nouvelle perspective d’appréhension du concept de destination , notamment urbaine, est proposée, basée sur la notion de projet et montrant la destination comme un ensemble de « projets » différenciés, mais intégrés à un « projet » global.
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 | 0.016 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".