Ebbs and flows of precarity and hope: Editor-in-chief notes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Tourism Development Master Plan for Siem Reap, Cambodia, described in the article in this issue by Celia Tuchman-Rosta (2024), embodies a common-sense hopefulness that tourism-as-hope has been weighted with for a very long time.Not only to grow national and local economies, reduce poverty, and pay back international debt-the hope behind the Master Plan for Siem Reap-the hopefulness of tourism, more broadly, has been directed at the realization of a great number of goals and aspirations, and from micro to macro scales (e.g., Crouch, 2021;Tucker et al., 2017).In Siem Reap, the livelihoods and futures of Cambodian cultural performers and vendors were tethered in new ways to the spatial borders of tourist sites created by the Master Plan (Tuchman-Rosta, 2024).So, too, this trajectory of precarity and uncertainty is unfortunately all too common for workers, residents, business owners, and others living in countless tourist destinations all over the world, albeit trajectories of precarity that play out in particular socio-historical formations, as this special issue so clearly demonstrates with different ethnographically-enlivened scenarios.This tension between hopefulness and precariousness, and all of the emotional, structural, financial, relational, and imaginative elements that are enmeshed in the friction that materializes between the hope/s of tourism and its precarities, is the central topic of the special theme in this December issue (Kaul and Tuchman-Rosta, 2024).This tension, this friction, this unease and discordance names the power dynamics implicit to tourism-tourism as "life itself" (Huijbens and Jóhannesson, 2019: 289).We are delighted to introduce "Precarity and Hope in the Tourism Landscape," a set of four papers, and introduction, and an afterward.The special issue is guest edited by
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 | 0.006 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".