Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This paper aims to conceptualize and illustrate how some island societies – in spite of their apparent openness, vibrant tourist economies and generally welcoming disposition – develop exclusionary attitudes to a range of immigrants, resulting in effective limits to their much vaunted hospitality culture. Design/methodology/approach In the context of a global review, the paper reports a qualitative study of immigrant experiences and perceptions from 2005 empirical survey data, as well as the personal observations of the author on Prince Edward Island, Canada's smallest and only fully island province. Findings While the bonding social capital of island communities tends to be strong, their bridging social capital tends to be weak. Other aspects of island life – including perceptions of smallness, affirmation of island identity, high population density, gentrification, the threat of invasion and the fear of the other – impact on the interaction of the “come heres” with the “from heres”. The paper shows divisions in islander attitudes between (short-term stay) tourists and (longer-term stay) immigrants in sharp relief. Research limitations/implications This analysis queries research assumptions about service, hospitality and tourism and provides a conceptual framework for the dynamics of visitation to island destinations. Practical implications These findings critique service quality, relationship management and attitudes to potential clients. Originality/value The paper connects immigration research to attitudes to tourism, using an island studies lens as its analytical tool and provides an insightful view of the contested dynamics of place, notions of hospitality and exclusion.
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 | 0.013 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".