Turistens blick i Sverige : En analys av två reseskildringar av Mary Wollstonecraft och Gabriel Traveler
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this thesis is to analyse the impression from a travel to Sweden of two travellers from distinct historical periods: Mary Wollstonecraft, who was an Enlightenment representative from Great Britain, and Gabriel Morris, a contemporary traveller and YouTube-filmmaker from Canada. The proposition is that there is no such thing as “an innocent eye”; that the nature of our perceiving the reality is a product (or a construct) of our social environment, upbringing, education, age, ethnicity, or nationality. For this thesis I read Mary Wollstonecraft´s Letters written during a short residence in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark, and I watched Gabriel Morris´s videos from the journey to Sweden on his YouTube-channel. I have described the journey to Sweden of those two protagonists and put it later into context of their historical backgrounds. The main issue has been whether there are differences in their perceiving Swedish nature, people, and culture, and what these differences are based upon. On the other hand, what can be thought of as uniting these two travellers – based on a simple fact that they both were only visiting the country for a short time? The conclusion I made is that their historical background has affected their experiencing the country; while the common ground could be found in the nature of tourism itself.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
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".