Establishing the routes to rural in‐migrant proprietorship in a Canadian tourism region: A mobilities perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article contributes to the ongoing conversation about in‐migration and rural economic change in the mobility era. It addresses the question: do rural in‐migrants' routes to proprietorship differ in developing tourism destinations? To answer this query, we analyse the migration movement, and postmovement performances, of rural Newfoundland and Labrador's in‐migrant tourism operators. We identify the dominant incoming groups (resident and seasonal counterurbanites and lateral migrants) and major destination choice motivations (family, amenity, and economics). We describe the business activities of in‐migrants' postmovement lives (early‐ and late‐stage) and the reasons for business operation (economic and noneconomic). By combining this movement and performance information, we uncover 12 business trajectories and new firm types. We find that counterurbanite and lateral migrant paths, and business types, differ, supporting the inclusion of both cohorts in future research. Our findings confirm and extend extant literature on rural in‐migration and tourism and reify the fluid relationship between movement and place in the mobility era.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".