Dreaming of axolotl- searching for the regenerative dimension of tourism
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
Tourism is a flagship phenomenon of late modernity with a growing footprint on the planet. As such, tourism aspires to transform into an activity that is more resilient, less consumptive, and more anchored in its host communities, among others. One of the emerging paths of tourism to reach these goals may be regenerative tourism. Situated within the regenerative movement, regenerative tourism has developed into a value-laden set of principles that frames regenerative tourism development. These principles, although relevant and necessary, avoid a central question—what is to be regenerated by regenerative tourism? We tackle this question by drawing parallels with regenerative agriculture and the immanent materialism anthropology of Anna Tsing. Through a soil metaphor, we identify salvageable and salvaged non-market amenities incorporated into capitalism as tourism commons that should constitute the core of the regenerative processes. The commons at play in regenerative tourism are site-specific and entangled with environmental and social processes. Identifying what should be regenerated in regenerative tourism comes with a warning that if regenerative tourism ends up regenerating tourism, like the axolotl regenerating from within itself, the new phenomenon could disconnect from its surroundings and evolve in an aquarium-like bell jar made of glass.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it