MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2764494259 · doi:10.7202/000171ar

Industry of Last Resort: Negotiating Admissible Identities in “Leisurescape”

2001· article· fr· W2764494259 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Alan Law

Bibliographic record

VenueLoisir et Société / Society and Leisure · 2001
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiverse Aspects of Tourism Research
Canadian institutionsTrent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNegotiationCommodificationTourismContext (archaeology)GentrificationIdentity (music)SociologyCultural tourismAestheticsPolitical scienceEconomyGeographyArtSocial scienceTourism geographyLawArchaeologyEngineeringCivil engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper interprets Collingwood Ontario’s negotiation of “leisurescape” in the context of global economic and cultural forces centering on the production of rural places as playgrounds for the urban middle class. Host communities that articulate “leisurescape” demanded by tourist resorts may certainly negotiate economic and cultural benefits, as well as bear the costs. However, negotiation of the place of “leisurescape” in relation to other sources of community identity is mediated by the depth, and breadth of alternative sources as well as the existence of platforms upon which symbolic negotiation can take place. Located in the literatures on urban gentrification and cultural commodification, the paper follows discourse converging on three symbolic “crises” centered on the community’s definitive shipyard site. It is argued that communities are not necessarily consigned to become opaque mirrors of the tourist gaze. Rather, resort development can stimulate the conscious negotiation of community symbols, potentially capable of co-locating industry and leisurescapes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.078
Threshold uncertainty score0.154

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0110.021
Scholarly communication0.0080.006
Open science0.0020.008
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.322 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2001
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLoisir et Société / Society and LeisureSame topicDiverse Aspects of Tourism ResearchFrench-language works237,207