Bibliographic record
Abstract
Indigenous tourism has many synonyms, including ethnic tourism, ethnotourism, ethno-ecotourism and aboriginal tourism. In spite of this ambiguity, indigenous tourism emerged as an important research field in the 1990s (Mercer 1995; Butler and Hinch 1996; Picard and Wood 1997; Moscardo and Pearce 1999; Zeppel 2007: 310). Many bibliographical references were compiled by the Canadian Tourism Commission (1997) for Canada. More recently, Kutzner et al. (2007) collected 323 references on indigenous tourism. In 2011, 41 papers related to indigenous tourism were published in the Bulletin of Latin American Research. The term ‘ethnic group’ is cited 57 times in the key words of CABI index of 2002, making it one of the most popular terms in the index since 1990, along with the concepts of history, sustainability and cultural heritage (Hall et al. 2007: 37). In the 1990s indigenous tourism was defined as the ensemble of first-hand experiences with indigenous cultures (Harron and Weiler 1992), a form of cultural collection (Volkman 1990), as well as a field of co-ethnic relations (van den Berghe 1994a) characterised by the attraction of the others and their culture, the different and ‘ethnic exoticism’, i.e. the native as a ‘touristised’ object of curiosity. At the same time, anthropologist Valene Smith defined indigenous tourism as: … that segment of the visitor industry which directly involves native peoples whose ethnicity is a tourist attraction … Indigenous tourism involves four interrelated elements: the geographic setting (habitat), the ethnographic traditions (heritage), the effects of acculturation (history), and the marketable handicrafts.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".