Bibliographic record
Abstract
On déplore souvent que la recherche délaisse le tourisme en général, et l’histoire de celui-ci en particulier. Pourtant, ce domaine de recherche n’est pas une tabula rasa et il existe des approches intéressantes dès l’après-guerre. Dans les années 1970, l’essor de l’histoire sociale et de l’histoire de la vie quotidienne (surtout en Allemagne) a permis un travail professionnel de recherche sur l’histoire du tourisme. Plus tard, la science du tourisme s’est ouverte à des questionnements historiques et culturels. La quantité des travaux historiques sur le tourisme s’est accrue ces dernières années – la qualité n’a pas toujours suivi. La recherche historique sur le tourisme n’est pas un but en soi ; elle n’a de sens que si elle transmet un savoir contextuel et effectue des synthèses, si elle montre des fonctions socioculturelles centrales du tourisme et/ou l’utilise comme clé de lecture pour des structures et processus cachés.
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 | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.005 |
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".