Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is an exploratory study of the social construction of tourist images of Vancouver, British Columbia. The various definitions of "image" as used by social scientists are reviewed, and the concept of the image as a socially-constructed product of indirect and direct experience is developed. To illustrate the images of a place that may be derived from secondary sources, 192 periodical articles concerning Vancouver, written since 1907, are examined using a modified content analysis technique. Secondly, the images tourists actually acquire by visiting the city are studied. A questionnaire designed to ascertain the past travel experience, intentions, information sources, and images of the city was administered to 1-2- escorted tour groups who visited Vancouver in August and September 1978. The results suggest that Vancouver has the public image of a beautiful, exciting, booming, cosmopolitan city, with Stanley Park as its outstanding landmark. Negative images figure low in the overall impressions of Vancouver, although non-travel-oriented periodicals tend to present more information on crime and politics than do other periodicals. Both analyses suggest that holistic images of the city may provide organizing schemata around which particular images of individual places are built. The study points to the benefit of travel as an enriching experience, and emphasizes the importance of information sources in the development of a sense of place.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".