MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2883070494 · doi:10.1080/07053436.2018.1482677

Faire de loisirs travail : les conditions sociales des reconversions professionnelles dans le tourisme

2018· article· fr· W2883070494 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tristan Loloum

Bibliographic record

VenueLoisir et Société / Society and Leisure · 2018
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation, sociology, and vocational training
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPassionTourismBusiness travelLivelihoodSociologyCourageRecreationIncentiveLeisure timeWork (physics)Public relationsPolitical sciencePsychologySocial psychologyEconomicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To what extent do leisure and travel participate in creating tourism professionals? How does one undertake a professional transition toward travel and tourism? Turning travel experiences into a job or leisure into a professional vocation is an increasingly widespread ambition. In the media, it is common to find incentives inviting anyone to leave his/her job and ‘earn money while traveling around the world.’ Against such common-sense discourses that tend to present passion, courage, and individual talent as the key elements of successful professional transition toward tourism and leisure jobs, the sociological analysis insists on the objective limitations and specific resources that are necessary to turn a passion into work, a travel experience into a livelihood, and a lifestyle into a commercial enterprise. Therefore, making a living out of travel and leisure is like ‘making a virtue out of a need’: it is pretending – advantageously – that a trajectory predetermined by social dispositions is the result of personal willingness and hedonistic motivations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.008
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.187
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.254 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLoisir et Société / Society and LeisureSame topicEducation, sociology, and vocational trainingFrench-language works237,207