MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7039767556

Mountains, movements & motives: guidebook discourse and the shaping of tourist experience in the Lake District fells 1778-1900

2017· other· en· W7039767556 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueInsight (University of Cumbria) · 2017
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTourismRecreationLake districtQuarter (Canadian coin)Presentation (obstetrics)Heritage tourism
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Historical analyses of tourism in the Lake District have tended to focus on the evidence of literary sources and journal accounts. Given the recent award of World Heritage status to the Lake District as a ‘cultural landscape’ of outstanding universal significance, it was felt that an examination of the texts that help form the tourist experience in the mountains was needed. The research examines the increasing significance of the mountains in the Lake District tourist experience through a discourse analysis of Lake District guidebooks between 1778 and 1900. The study focuses on how the mountains are portrayed, analyses how activity among them is prescribed and conducted, and considers how these elements impact upon tourist motive. It has been found that, from the mid-19th century, the guidebook prioritises a physical, bodily response to the mountains over the perceptive and emotional responses that characterised earlier texts. It is argued that the later emphasis on physical performance and health in the guidebook reflects the wider Victorian interest in rational recreation as an instrument of social progress. From the second quarter of the 19th century onwards, the portrayal of the mountains and the direction of activity among them is increasingly driven by geographical information and maps. This, it is argued, is evidence of the incursion of the apparatus of the nation state into the guidebook discourse. By the late 19th century, the guidebook relies heavily on maps and employs rational methods of presentation and direction which support and encourage instrumental objectives.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.358
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.240 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInsight (University of Cumbria)French-language works237,207