Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate the reasons that tourists capture images of their trips on cameras or camcorders. Design/methodology/approach Over a period of approximately five years, the authors observed, photographed and interviewed tourists taking photos or videos in diverse international locations. Upon returning home, informants e‐mailed their trip photos together with descriptions of what the images meant and what they had done with them when at home. These data were archived and interpreted in line with the central research questions. Findings Why does almost every tourist carry a camera or camcorder? What are they doing making these images? And what do they do with them once they return home? The accompanying video conveys most of the findings, while the manuscript elaborates on certain theoretical points and provides contextualizing and supportive evidence from the literatures dealing with tourism and photography. Originality/value The paper suggests that the images form part of an identity project, serving as a means of conveying internal tales to the self rather than as a means of, beyond the immediate family, communicating with others. The images act as tools for displacing meanings that are too fragile and tenuous to be contained in the fragile present as Grant McCracken describes more generally with regard to tying hopes and dreams to places and times of the past and future.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".