Southern seduction: Canadian and American snowbirds in Florida since 1945
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the late 19th century, Florida's promoters and civic leaders have constructed the state as a tourist destination. The result was a Florida Dream that visitors and migrants could interpret according to their own expectations: as an hedonist escape from the routine of work and family; as a warm refuge from northern winters; as a rapidly expanding pool of economic opportunity. Florida's immense popularity as a tourist destination and migrant haven was then built on that Dream, as well as on abundant and escapist promotion, on transportation technology, on the development of its real estate industry and of its tourist accommodations, on rising disposable incomes since the 1940s. Florida's population grew rapidly, in great part because of its tourism. This thesis explains and analyzes the phenomenon of seasonal, long-term winter travel to Florida, travelers that South Floridians have called snowbirds. It demonstrates what pushed and pulled snowbirds to Florida, analyzes their journey south, their settlement patterns and housing choices, their tendency to congregate together, the forms of their sociability. It mostly defines snowbirds as migrants who, down South, build communities of kindred spirits. In the fragmented built landscape of 20th-century Florida, the congregation of snowbirds produced unique forms of socialization and, we argue, of community. These unique settlements have uniquely influenced Floridians' debates about their own community-building issues, while playing a part in Northerners' views about Florida, the South, the North, the United States and Canada. Snowbirds, from their standpoint on Florida and North America, were agents in the definition of peculiar yet deeply modern, North American forms of sociability and community, as well as agents in the ongoing collective conversation creating a (late) modern folklore of leisure, geography, mobility, topophilia and identity.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".