Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper advances the idea that when debates about the disposition of old buildings pop up in the context of tourism development, we are able to ‘read’ an interplay of versions of community histories. These histories render up particular ‘archives’ of community that link the past to the future. Styled here as ‘performances’ it is argued that such debates are important sites for imprinting the authorship of place (Harvey, 2001) in the consciousness of communities undergoing shifts from production to consumption economies. The ephemeral nature of these archives and the ‘artefacts’ within them draw our attention to the importance of public forums which facilitate the continued working and reworking of identity politics involved in the question of who made, and who is making, a ‘place’. A comparative methodology across two Canadian communities (Collingwood, Ontario, and Kimberley, B.C.) is engaged to argue that debates about old buildings perform archives of community involvement in place making. Irrespective of differences in industrial structures and relationships to tourism development we are able to observe the normative enactment/ disenfranchisement of local ‘place makers’. In conclusion it is argued that such debates produce community biographies that must be given voice in accommodating world‐class resort development.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".