Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the trajectory, ambitions, and practices involved in the official national and provincial planning for Jeju Island from 1963 to 1985 as it became reimagined as the so-called ‘Hawai'i of East Asia’. Jeju Island has been constantly built, left unfinished, demolished, and rebuilt at each wave and ebb in regional tourism trends. Jeju has thus become a complicated geography of heavy contradictions as South Korea’s prime tourism experiment. Before the 2002 ‘Free International City’ project, the larger region of Jeju Island was identified as a ‘specified region’ from 1963 for experimentation in tourism. By virtue of its historic marginality, Jeju has been portrayed as a pristine internal frontier ripe for tourism and utopian transformation ‘like Hawai’i’. Surprisingly, however, ‘Hawai’i’ does not actually appear in official planning documentation, even while it is a frequent talking point in public discourse. In this paper, I discuss the specter of ‘Hawai’i’ in Jeju tourism development and address the discrepancy between official development planning strategies and colloquial references to Hawai’i, observing that reference to ‘Hawai’i’ was not from initial design but followed the late 1950s to 1960s zeitgeist in which tourism itself became a mark of distinction for modernity.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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 | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".