The ordinary Niagara Falls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tourism is a practice traditionally geared away from the ordinary; by virtue of its opposition \nfrom everyday life tourism is an act through which we see and do extraordinary things (Urry, \n1992). Over time, tourism scholars have complemented and amended these conceptualizations of \ntourism as a spectacular practice, bringing in more nuanced understandings of tourism as a part \nof (and not apart from) ordinary life (Larsen, 2008). These orientations include situating the body \nin tourism (Veijola & Jokinen, 1994), turning toward the mundane and the proximate (Rantala et \nal., 2020), and positioning tourism as an ordered and assembled performance (Franklin, 2004; \nvan der Duim, 2007). As Niagara Falls, Ontario remains a place dominated by material and \ndiscursive spectacle, I am drawn to considering the power of its “ordinary” aspects (Stewart, \n2007) in the overall maintenance of its position in the global tourism landscape. Broadly, this \ndissertation argues that the construction of tourism at Niagara Falls is, indeed, ordinary, achieved \nnot only thorough the larger representational work of advertising and marketing, but through the \nindividual and collective actions of tourists, researchers, residents, and people living with/in and \nsubsequently worldmaking (Hollinshead et al., 2009) with/in Niagara Falls, Ontario. This \ndissertation also argues that this ordinary work has extraordinary outcomes, and helps to locate \ntourism as enrolled in the further production of Canadian nationalism, settler colonialism, \nruination, and state-sponsored reconciliation in Niagara Falls, Ontario. These are not new \narguments, but they are arguments that I believe have urgency in the wake of accelerating \nclimate crisis, global pandemics, and geopolitical conditions that are converging in the changing \npractices doing of “ordinary” tourism.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.002 |
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".