Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tourism studies have long been interested in the relationship between the tourism experience and tourists’ perceptions of the destinations they visit. More recent studies have explored tourists’ reflexive engagement with the tourism experience. This article argues that tourists’ reflexivity is best seen as emerging within what Henri Lefebvre would call a social space. The conceptualization of the tourism destination as social space draws attention to the practices involved in its (re)creation. In particular, the article argues that the circulation of rumour is an important practice through which the tourism space is (re)created. The analysis of tourists visiting Pangnirtung, Nunavut shows that perceptions are not something which tourists ‘consume’ from tourism marketing and then ‘possess’. Instead, perceptions often have the quality of rumour. The conceptualization of touristic knowledge as rumour shows how perceptions are continually open to contestation and, potentially, change. However, circulating rumours is not simply a question of what tourists ‘believe’ or ‘disbelieve’, but something they do. An engagement with rumours reflects tourists’ engagement with the tourism space and, hence, rumours must be continually (re)created at the level of practice. The article explores this process by looking at some of the rumours that circulated among tourists passing through Pangnirtung.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".