Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores how perceptions of the authenticity of the Haida people in the Pacific Northwest on the Haida Gwaii archipelago have emerged over time. The paper is interdisciplinary, linking tourism, heritage and Canadian studies and has an anthropological and cultural emphasis. Tourism provides the ideal crucible in which to examine international perceptions of Canadian living history and embodied memory through direct, unscripted encounters between hosts and travellers. Signifiers of Haida authenticity have emerged since anthropologists such as Franz Boas and Henry Field observed the Haida people, objectifying the artefacts which they collected and museumified. The research explores how ‘staged authenticity’ has been selectively promoted both by the British Columbian tourist authority in various forms. Local tourism promotion emphasises how Haida Gwaii is a magically real place, connected both to the spiritual practises of local people and to the natural environment. Whilst tourists are urged to experience living history in the form of indigenous practises and are encouraged to try local skills and experiences, such as the making of bentwood boxes, the paper argues that they never truly glimpse the unstaged backstage. A more authentically inclusive encounter is offered through the local Haida guides ‘the Watchmen’ on the islands of the archipelago, instructing visitors about life on the islands and exploring the meanings of the World Heritage site and the iconic totem poles which symbolise embodied memory. Digital museum encounters, which present new meeting grounds for tourists and First Peoples in Canada present new opportunities for co-creating remembrance and reinvention.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.050 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".