Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it