Quo vadis research on spatial atmospheres?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper offers a multidisciplinary overview on the concept and reality of affective and spatial atmospheres.Initially, the paper provides a synopsis on the disciplinary origins of the concept in philosophy, cultural geography and architecture, and then outlines how tourism research has more recently started adopting the atmosphere perspective.Research on spatial atmospheres has primarily been concerned with collective affective phenomena in space, but has also been characterised by inconclusive debates regarding where transpersonal affect ultimately emanates from (quasi-objective environmental origins vs relational body/'Leib'-centred origins).While these are important debates which have implications, the practical and empirical operationalisation of the atmosphere concept is just as relevant.This holds particularly for tourism, where providers try to engineer desired moods and ambiances.The paper concludes by identifying current gaps in the literature and outlines future directions for research into atmospheres, in the tourism field and beyond.
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.006 |
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 it