The Commodification of Rural Heritage: Creative Destruction in Newfoundland and Labrador
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The intent of this study is to determine if the process of creative destruction is underway in a rural community located in Newfoundland and Labrador and to identify why this development sequence has or has not occurred. Three objectives underlie this study. The first is to determine at what stage Ferryland is situated in the Model of Creative Destruction. The second is to explain the community’s current stage in the model. The third objective is to provide recommendations for this community on its future development potential. These objectives were fulfilled through data collection that included: participant observation, content analysis of newspapers, and a review of relevant documents, key informant interviews, and resident and visitor surveys. \nThis mixed method study concluded that the community of Ferryland is in the stage of advanced commodification in Mitchell’s (2009) Model of Creative Destruction. Three reasons are identified for its current state. First, the community lacks a tourism champion. Secondly, human capital shortage in Ferryland has created a lack of workers. Lastly, the actions of local stakeholders are not driven solely by the motivations outlined by Mitchell (2009). They are also underlain by the desire for pleasure; a motivation that does not appear to have encouraged fast-paced development. Furthermore, Ferryland is a community on a much smaller scale, which may have lessened perceived impacts and scale of development. Based on these conclusions, it is recommended that the Ferryland Tourism Committee creates a long-term plan for tourism that incorporates opinions of local residents.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".