Bibliographic record
Abstract
The insularity of super-sized cruise ships is simultaneously part of their appeal and a problem. Seagoing tourism enclaves offer a world of fantasy, consumption, familiarity, and diversion. However, problems encountered by passengers with respect to seasickness, boredom, and a sense of entrapment are noted within a range of publications. Selling the desirable aspects of cruise-ship enclosure co-exists with attempts to address the unease, discomfort, and uncertainty associated with bounded domains. These two currents, to use a nautical metaphor, characterize – or steer – the way in which shipboard experiences are sold to passengers. The concept of place marketing can be related to the thrust of the currents. Place marketing has been widely addressed in relation to urban and rural areas but not tourism enclaves such as cruise ships. The insular cruise-ship environment – a contained, consumption-driven place – is sold to (prospective) passengers in different ways. Those who study place marketing have yet to address dissimilar, but complementary, promotional messages (or currents) that are used to sell resort-style environments. Commercial imperatives explain the actions of cruise-ship companies with respect to selling the enclosed nature of their vessels, especially to North American consumers. The way in which place marketers manage place-based images – a response to intensified intercity or inter-town competition – mirrors the careful management of the promotion of shipboard spaces, often a response to intense competition within the cruise industry and part of initiatives designed to attract first-time passengers. This study addresses a research question: How are different but congruous promotional messages deployed as part of efforts to sell shipboard spaces?
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".