The diversity of polar tourism. Some challenges facing the industry in Rovaniemi, Finland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Tourism in the Polar Regions is flourishing. Yet, because of a series of geographical and infrastructural barriers, tourism in the Polar and sub-Polar Region is a constant challenge for tourists and operators. Polar destinations also tend to be oriented toward one tourism season only with gaps between the peak and low seasons. While polar destinations are at differing stages of development, Rovaniemi – the capital of Finnish Lapland – stands out as a very important North European tourism centre. However, even with successful tourism operations (in terms of figures – economic and attendances), Rovaniemi still encounters many development challenges. Using previously published literature, field observation and semi-structured interviews with two of Rovaniemi's main operators, this articles aims at identifying and discussing some of the challenges facing the tourism industry in this locality. In the process, the article discusses the difficulty of naming this form of travel. Stressing that tourism in the Polar and sub-Polar Regions has up to now been mostly studied from a geographical perspective, the article emphasises the need for a complementary sociological approach to the study of tourism in the Polar Regions.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".