MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2081417666 · doi:10.1080/14766820802140414

‘Moral Renovation and Intellectual Exaltation’: Thomas Cook's Tourism as Practical Education

2008· article· en· W2081417666 on OpenAlexaff
Trent Newmeyer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Tourism and Cultural Change · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligious Tourism and Spaces
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTourismSociologyEnvironmental ethicsMoral educationAestheticsPolitical scienceArtPhilosophyLawPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tourism has long had significant educational potential from the enlightenment of the Grand Tour to contemporary high-school and university tours to Europe and beyond. The development of mass, conducted tourism as a form of education for middle-class women and the working classes is less well understood. Based on primary research at the Thomas Cook archives, this paper examines how Cook attempted to harness the educational potential of travel by transforming it into a commercial product that the average consumer could afford. Tourism not only needed to be affordable, but also comfortable and safe given the relative inexperience these groups had travelling. Cook's critics lambasted the educational qualities of his tours and the ability of his tourists to truly appreciate what they were witnessing and experiencing. However, this criticism was often based on elitist attitudes about who could travel and the ability of the ‘lower sorts’ to comprehend it all. Cook's mission was to transform travel into tourism making it accessible to the middle and working classes but at the same time retaining its promise of enlightenment.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.153

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0140.037
Scholarly communication0.0080.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0040.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.274 · 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

Citations9
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Tourism and Cultural ChangeSame topicReligious Tourism and SpacesFrench-language works237,207