Literature, cultural identity and the limits of authenticity: a composite approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Although tourism scholarship has paid much attention to the concept of authenticity in relation to the homogenisation of tourism representation, this term has limits that curb its usefulness for analysing subtle interrelations of place, representation and identity. Some recent work has attempted to recuperate authenticity by associating it with experience and activity, however we suggest that the concept of cultural identity allows for greater attention to the fluid movements of social power relations that inform the tourist site. By undertaking a comparative analysis of three global tourist sites located in the Middle East (Jerusalem), North America (Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan) and Europe (Isle of Wight), this article discusses the politics of representation vis à vis identity as manifested in a spectrum of tourism‐related literature ranging from pamphlets, maps and guidebooks, to more creative approaches in contemporary novels and poetry. This comparative survey of literature explores questions of identity on several fronts: first, it prompts questions about how religious, historical and national identities are formulated in and through the tourist site; second, it leads to an assessment of a site's claim to status as a work of art that prompts aesthetic identification; and finally, it allows one to consider how other works of art — in this case, novelistic or poetic representations — both affirm and question identities presented by standard tourist literature. These alternative textual representations demonstrate not only how cultural identity as represented in the tourist site is an active site of struggle, but also present alternative politics of place and identity that enable a greater diversity of interpretations of the tourist site. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.072 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.032 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".