“Taken by the fairies” \nAn examination of contemporary fairy commodification and culture in Newfoundland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On the Avalon Peninsula of Newfoundland, fairies are no longer feared and avoided \n(Reiti, 1991; Narvaez, 1991), but are something people have commodified and are marketing and \nselling. This thesis includes some of these examples: Tina White’s guided tours the Fairy Door \nTours and Fairy Lore Walkabout, the Faerie Garden and Fairy Nights at the Cupids Legacy \nCentre, described by Claudine Garland and Peter Laracy, and the written representation by local \nwriters Dennis Flynn and Dale Jarvis, and local publisher Marnie Parsons who owns and \noperates the Running the Goat: Books and Broadsides publishing company in Tors Cove. \nApplying the theoretical concepts of play (Masters, 2008; Eicher-Catt, 2016; Lambrow, 2020), \nassemblage (Santino, 1986), enchantment/re-enchantment (Magliocco, 2018; Saler, 2003, 2004), \nand escapism (Heilman, 1975; Young, 1976; Usherwood and Toyne, 2002), to the theoretical \nframework of commodification, I show how locals are adapting “our” fairy traditions and using \nthe interest sparked by the popular culture representation of fairies to teach audiences about \ndifferent aspects of Newfoundland culture, such as storytelling traditions, as well as \nNewfoundland values, like respect for nature and for other people. I also show how the visual \nrepresentation of fairies has been more sanitized than the written form. Finally, I show how \nlocals, both proprietors and consumers, are using these examples to create and foster a sense of \nlocal 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.015 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".