Food Involvement, Sustainable Practices, and Travel Intent: Moral Tensions?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Considerable work has identified the characteristics and travel preferences of foodies. Many food tourists are seduced by high end indulgent activities, not necessarily aligned with sustainability objectives. In this article we ask: Are food tourists' involvement levels and travel choices in accordance with sustainability objectives? In so doing we explore moral tensions. Using Swedish survey data incorporating a food involvement scale we capture domestic sustainability sensibilities and infer food involvement and travel intention implications. Results show a) strong linkages between domestic sustainability food practices and involvement and b) that those seeking novel and new food experiences are likely to travel. On the other hand, foodies that practice sustainability in their domestic life are less inclined to travel. Inherent to these findings is an identity tension between the hedonic epicure and the sustainable food-wise foodie. Theoretically, this suggests sustainability, in parallel with hedonism, is a sensitizing driver of involvement. Practically, the implications are that destinations post-COVID-19 will have to work harder on image enhancement campaigns targeting sustainably sensitive food tourists.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".