Listening otherwise: From “silent tourism” soundscapes to privileged sonic ways of knowing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores quests for silence in tourism in English-language online media. We offer a reading of media forms all articulating a soundscape of silence: a preferred sonic environment for tourists’ health and well-being. A relational and reflexive approach allows us to interrogate these taken-for-granted desired silences, and to emplace ourselves in the analysis. Using critical discourse analysis, we try to listen to the sounds produced in the texts, and to write with, and about, the sounds that resonate with us, to disrupt the naturalization implicit to the silent tourism soundscapes. Such calls for silent tourism use vocabularies that reproduce a universalistic aurality and binaries of wanted/unwanted, silence/noise, nonhuman/human, good/bad that moralize and objectify. Relational ontology and feminist critiques of “soundscape” help us to rethink silent tourism as ways of knowing. Ultimately, in the media we reflect on and are not separate from sonic ways of knowing seem very much entangled with wealth, privilege, individualism, and settler positionalities.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.048 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".