MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3140082354 · doi:10.23912/9781911635222-4751

The Future of Film Tourism

2020· book-chapter· en· W3140082354 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueGoodfellow Publishers eBooks · 2020
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiverse Aspects of Tourism Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTourismMovie theaterStudioDestinationsTourism geographyAdvertisingVisual artsMedia studiesArtHistoryGeographySociologyBusinessArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Film tourism refers to a post-modern experience at an attraction or destination which has been portrayed in ‘some form of media representation, such as the cinema screen, television or video’ (Kork, 2018: 5). Film-induced tourism occurs when a tourist visits ‘a destination or attraction as a result of the destination being featured on television, video, DVD or the cinema screen’ (Hudson and Ritchie, 2006: 256). Screen tourism, movie induced tourism and TV induced tourism are other terms commonly used in association with this type of special interest tourism (Riley et al., 1998; Connell, 2005; Connell and Meyer, 2009). Beeton (2005), categorises film-induced tourism based on where the tourism activities occur, namely ‘on-film’ and ‘off-film’ induced tourism. ‘On-film’ induced tourism refers to tourism resulting from where a part of a film is shot and shown on the screen, while ‘off-film’ induced tourism refers to events or artificial destinations actualised through the involvement in films (Beeton, 2005). Film-induced tourism falls under the umbrella of cultural tourism as it represents the cultural heritage of a destination and may be considered an expression of visual arts and local traditions (Gjorgievski and Trpkova, 2012), with Kim et al. (2007: 1351) suggesting it has ‘great potential to advance cultural exchange and understanding’. As an illustration of the size and extent of movies which are filmed away from traditional studios, the 11 Star War movies filmed between 1977 and 2019 utilised a number of location sites throughout the world, in addition to sound film studios in the United Kingdom (Elstree and Pinewood Studios) and Australia (Fox Studio). Locations included the countries of Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Norway, England, Guatemala, Switzerland, Australia, Italy, Thailand, Spain, Ireland, Bolivia and the Maldives (Obias, 2018a). Only two USA locations were used for filming, both in California, however outside of the traditional Los Angeles and Hollywood sites. Similarly, many scenes in the six Mission Impossible movies spanning from 1996 to 2018 were filmed on location in various parts of the world, including Prague, Norway, Paris, London, Washington, Virginia, Sydney, Utah, Berlin, China, Vatican City, Morocco, Vienna, Kuala Lumpur, Budapest, Moscow Mumbai, Canada and Dubai (Looch, 2018; Obias 2018b). Table 8.1 shows a variety of on-film and off-film induced tourism.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.345
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.243 · 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