MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2895687050 · doi:10.1080/14724049.2018.1529180

On tourism, pleasure and the summum bonum

2018· article· en· W2895687050 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Ecotourism · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligious Tourism and Spaces
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPleasureScholarshipEnlightenmentTourismMysticismPhilosophyAestheticsEpistemologyTheologyGeographyPolitical sciencePsychologyLawArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this paper was to to argue that although there are many ways of conceptualising the nature of the tourist experience, the clearest ontological platform from which to explain this nature is through the concept of pleasure. Pleasure as the utlimate end or supreme good (the summum bonum) has occupied the thoughts of philosophers for millennia. A synthesis of the historical discourse on the summum bonum is distilled into four main themes: philosophical, Christian, evolutionary and learning-based, and Enlightenment. From these perspectives, two different types of tourism are highlighted, ego-centred (e.g. cruiseline tourism) and other-centred (e.g. voluntourism), with the aim of discussing how pleasure is the guiding force behind each. Given the lack of emphasis on the summum bonum in tourism studies, and in scholarship more generally, there is an obligatory focus here on old insight into this very old concept.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.137
Threshold uncertainty score0.535

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.269 · 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