Greenlandic Independence and tourism futures - exploring <i>Modern</i> and <i>Ethnic</i> logics.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter, acting as both the culmination and conclusion to Part 2 of this volume, explores Greenlandic futures at the intersection of tourism development and possible independence. To further investigate tourism as an arena for discussing independence, this chapter begins by identifying and describing the 'identity logics' underpinning political debate around independence in Greenland and trace these the analysis into current tourism activities in Greenland. These logics are analytical constructs that the authors do not seek to find empirically in pure form, but rather use as tools to understand statements and events in the Greenlandic independence process. The analysis is based on a review of current and former Greenlandic tourism strategies and campaigns together with a series of qualitative interviews and a workshop with Greenlandic tourism actors. In the first logic, modernity, Greenland is following a path to statehood, where tourism is inscribed in the building of a strong national identity, enabled through infrastructure development on and mobility within Greenlandic territory. In the second, ethnic logic, a path that leads to strengthened Inuit identity, tourism is about immersion in Indigenous tradition and ethnic expressions. While the two dominant logics underpinning independence in Greenland are identifiable within both political and tourism arenas, it is argued that emerging issues and concerns in tourism, such as tourism as a colonial undertaking, can pave the way towards the crafting of new identity positions. This contribution has identified a link between tourism, (desti-)nation-building and future independence in Greenland and has pointed to the existence of a vibrant and hybrid cultural production to challenge the nature of 'ethnic 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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".