Tourism As an Agent of Cannabis Normalization: Perspectives from Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 2018 legalization of cannabis in Canada provides an opportunity within a federally legalized context to offer recreational and leisure experiences that incorporate the purchase, consumption, production, and education of cannabis. The establishment of cannabis tourism as a tolerated and increasingly widespread and socially significant practice under the frameworks of legalization and normalization challenges its association with deviance in the tourism literature. The purpose of this article to rethink cannabis tourism as an agent of normalization. In adopting cannabis as a resource, the tourism industry sets standards that become embedded in a broader context of social acceptance. Evidence from a study that documents cannabis tourism in Canada in the first few years following legalization is used to illustrate how tourism suppliers have adopted cannabis as a resource. This article contributes a qualitative assessment of normalization to the literature through an examination of both a database of cannabis tourism-related businesses and the narratives of suppliers in the cannabis tourism industry. Tourism is conceptualized as an agent of normalization by illustrating how it facilitates the accessibility and availability, everyday prevalence, increased tolerance, and social and cultural accommodation of cannabis.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.030 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".