Second homes vs. residential tourism: A research gap
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Residential tourism and second homes are two closely related phenomena that constitute a growing research fi eld, but the diff erent names given to the concepts by researchers have led to a fragmented and disconnected literature.Th ese two categories are essentially the same -or share many elements -but the research seems to be disjointed, which, in our opinion, has created a gap in the existing literature on this subject.Specifi cally, the research on "residential tourism" has expanded to integrate not only second home ownership issues, but the rental of holiday homes to tourists.Th is commercial use of second homes has been only occasionally referred to by second home authors.Mainstream literature, mainly focused on North American-Canadian and Scandinavian destinations, uses the term "second homes".Conversely, researchers in Mediterranean countries -e.g.Spain or France -prefer the term "residential tourism".Both phenomena are also related with a third concept, to take into account in this context, the visiting friends and relatives tourism (VFR).Th is note advocates an unifi ed approach to studying this kind of tourism that will extend knowledge in the fi eld and optimise future research eff orts.
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 | 0.036 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.025 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".