MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1989192992 · doi:10.1080/17551820902742715

The Ottoman Empire and the American flag: patriotic travel before the age of package tours, 1830–1870

2009· article· en· W1989192992 on OpenAlexaff
Susan Nance

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Tourism History · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTravel Writing and Literature
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlag (linear algebra)EmpireBannerNationalismTourismOttoman empireAdvertisingMeaning (existential)Order (exchange)HistoryAncient historyPolitical scienceLawArchaeologyPsychologyBusinessPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines US flag display practices among American tourists in the Ottoman Empire between 1835 and 1870. These practices emerged from the intersection of the domestic American market for depictions of citizens abroad, Ottoman regulation on foreign nationals in the Empire that required flag display on boats and camps, and the energy of Ottoman travel industry workers who helped American visitors’ extend flag display to other colloquial touristic uses. American consumers accepted patriotic flag display as a central part of travel routines in the Middle East in order to ascribe patriotic meaning to their vacations. It was the first articulation of the idea that travel was an American activity through which citizens might serve themselves and the state by representing their nation abroad as consumers. American uses of the national banner in the Empire demonstrated that, a full century earlier than previous research has indicated, leisure travel became a patriotic practice for many Americans, and that tourism and nationalism were mutually reinforcing phenomena.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.306
Threshold uncertainty score0.608

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.005
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations2
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Tourism HistorySame topicTravel Writing and LiteratureFrench-language works237,207