Tourism Development on China’s Northwestern Border: Territorialisation, Reterritorialisation, and Geopolitics of the Great Altai Region in Inner Asia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study analyses tourism development in the Great Altai Region (GAR), both within and outside Chinese borders, to explore how the Chinese party-state uses tourism development as a strategy to simultaneously territorialise an ethnic minority border region and reterritorialise the entire GAR. This spatial reconfiguration aims to align the regional geopolitics and geo-economics with the Belt and Road Initiative. Document collection and participant observation methods were used to gather data. The findings show that the party-state enhances its control over the border and ethnic minorities in the Kanas Tourist Attraction area by developing eco-tourism, intersecting territoriality, tourism, and ecologism. Concurrently, cross-border tourism has been promoted in the GAR to reterritorialise the region, both materially and discursively, in favour of China’s spatial vision. Although territorialisation of the Chinese borderland helps the party-state manage the reterritorialisation processes in the GAR, it also creates a securitisation-integration dilemma, arising from conflicts between the Chinese national territorial logic and GAR territorial logic.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".