MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393947099 · doi:10.1080/14927713.2024.2332668

Primeval and scenic: ways of seeing Swedish national park forests as arenas for experiences enabled by the Swedish Tourist Association’s yearbooks (1886–2013)

2024· article· en· W4393947099 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Emelie Fälton

Bibliographic record

VenueLeisure/Loisir · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental Philosophy and Ethics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTourismNational parkAssociation (psychology)GeographyEnvironmental ethicsHistoryArchaeologyPsychologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article extends insights into the discourse on Swedish forests as arenas for experiences by unravelling, making visible, and problematizing how ways of seeing such forests have been constructed over time. This is investigated concerning the Swedish national parks, which have offered tourists experiences of forest milieus since the early 1900s. Representations in the Swedish Tourist Association’s yearbooks published between 1886 and 2013 are analyzed to get hold of ways of seeing. Through the analysis, two ways of seeing are identified: 1) primeval national park forests as arenas for experiences, and 2) scenic national park forests as arenas for experiences. Primeval forests are represented with old, wild, pristine, and inaccessible qualities, offering tourists experiences of forests far away from humanity, where time has remained still. Scenic forests are constructed to have aesthetic, grand, and calming qualities that create feelings among tourists of being in a beautiful, outstanding, and safe place. Both ways of seeing contain traces of romanticism, which indicates that they represent and communicate meanings of the Romantic movement of the late 1700s and early 1800s.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.232
Threshold uncertainty score0.558

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.234 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLeisure/LoisirSame topicEnvironmental Philosophy and EthicsFrench-language works237,207