Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is indeed ironic that despite the importance of pleasure as a central theme in both the practice and theory of travel, there is a critical absence of knowledge from which to theoretically and conceptually situate this concept in our field. Given this current state, the purpose of this paper is to undertake a general survey of literature on pleasure, incorporating knowledge from a number of diverse fields including philosophy, evolutionary biology, psychology, neuroscience, social psychology, sociology, and tourism. More specifically, the paper examines sensory or qualitative forms of pleasure and these are compared and contrasted with emotional or attitudinal forms of pleasure, including satisfaction, enjoyment and aesthetics. These different types of pleasure are later organized into a conceptual framework and linked with different temporal frames of pleasure, including anticipatory, on-site, and remembered temporal contexts. This arrangement, along with the interdisciplinary nature of the work, is viewed eis a point of departure for further research in the area.
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.
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 | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it