Reindeer as Draught Animals in Tourism: Bringing Past Traditions into Modern Practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Driving with reindeer is an old tradition in northern Fennoscandia that became almost extinct in the last century but that has increased in the past few decades along with tourism. This study investigates the current use of draught reindeer in Lapland, identifies changes since the mid-1900s, and explores the human-reindeer relationship related to this practice, including draught training. We conducted interviews and participatory research with 15 reindeer herders who trained draught reindeer for tourism and competitive racing in northern Finland. Reindeer training today follows similar steps to those followed in the last century, but today the draught training starts earlier, with calves in their first autumn, and takes longer, usually three to four winters. The reindeer are carefully chosen, and their training and roles are more specified than in the past. Mutual trust, communication, and learning play essential roles in the establishment of human-reindeer relationships and collaboration. Herders treat reindeer as individuals and co-actors and take into account their interests and well-being. Driving practice was restarted in the 1970s because of tourism. In the early years of tourism, when draught reindeer were not available for this, racing reindeer were used for sledging; this contributed to the revival of the practice. We conclude that draught reindeer training and use in tourism is reviving old draught-reindeer culture and passing it forward, albeit in a new form. It combines reindeer herders’ traditional knowledge with modern requirements, deepens the herder-reindeer relationship, and supports reindeer herding as a livelihood.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".