MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2035584061 · doi:10.3727/109830408783900361

“I Decided to Invest in My Kids' Memories”: Family Vacations, Memories, and the Social Construction of the Family

2008· article· en· W2035584061 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Susan Shaw, Mark E. Havitz, Fern M. Delemere

Bibliographic record

VenueTourism Culture & Communication · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiverse Aspects of Tourism Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFamily lifeGenogramTourismPsychologyConstruct (python library)Social psychologyEveryday lifeCohesion (chemistry)SociologyGender studiesPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article explores the cultural significance of family vacations and the role that these vacations play in the social construction of the family. Based on a series of semistructured interviews with members of families living in Ontario, Canada, the article examines the meanings and experiences associated with family vacations for parents of school aged children. Family vacations were seen as a form of escape from the pressures of everyday life, even though they involved organizational and emotional work, especially for mothers. Family vacations were valued as an opportunity for family togetherness and for improving patterns of family communication. Of particular importance was the long-term goal of creating memories that would enhance family cohesion and construct and support a positive sense of family. The findings indicate that the cultural meanings associated with family vacations, at least for these Canadian families, may be different in some important ways from other forms of tourism.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.239
Threshold uncertainty score0.475

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.010
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations128
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTourism Culture & CommunicationSame topicDiverse Aspects of Tourism ResearchFrench-language works237,207