MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2977973860

이스탄불 도시관광객의 장소경험 -렐프의 내부성과 외부성 개념을 중심으로-

2014· article· ko· W2977973860 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
심창섭

Bibliographic record

Venue관광학연구 · 2014
Typearticle
Languageko
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiverse Aspects of Tourism Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTourismGeographerMeaning (existential)Space (punctuation)Argument (complex analysis)SociologyEpistemologyPostmodernismSymbolic interactionismSocial psychologyAestheticsPsychologyGeographyLinguisticsEconomic geographyArt
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To explain the concept of place, a Canadian geographer, Edward Relph introduced the dualistic concepts of insideness and outsideness, suggesting that an individual constructs his/her own meaning of a particular space based on a combination between insidenness and outsideness. He explains that insideness can be experienced in familiar, safe, comfortable places while outsideness is related to an individual``s uncomfortable, unfamiliar, detached emotions towards a space. Despite the fact that these concepts are closely associated with fundamental motivation of tourists, tourism researchers have not sufficiently employed these concepts in analyzing tourist experiences. Therefore, employing a phenomenological approach and semi-structured qualitative interviews, the current study examined 16 Korean tourists who were visiting Istanbul, Turkey. The results support the argument that urban tourism is a symbolic example of postmodern tourism since respondents create various meanings on urban spaces, experiencing insideness and/or outsideness based on their background, desire, motivation, and expectation. According to the results, three theoretical and practical implications are provided.

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 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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.778
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.024

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.309 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue관광학연구Same topicDiverse Aspects of Tourism ResearchFrench-language works237,207