L'influence des sites patrimoniaux sur les attraits émergents : Le cas du Machu Picchu
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ce mémoire explore l’influence des sites patrimoniaux, tel que le Machu Picchu, sur la manière dont les touristes et les conseillers en voyage perçoivent et valorisent les attraits touristiques émergents situés à proximité, tels que ceux de la région de Cusco, au Pérou. En s’appuyant sur une approche qualitative, il analyse les discours de conseillers en voyage québécois et péruviens afin de comprendre comment ce site, largement médiatisé, façonne les itinéraires proposés aux voyageurs et tend à réduire la place accordée à certains attraits moins connus. L’étude démontre comment des éléments comme les distinctions internationales (UNESCO, merveille du monde), les images partagées sur les réseaux sociaux et l’imaginaire collectif jouent un rôle important dans le processus de valorisation touristique. Elle contribue à mieux comprendre les dynamiques d’attractivité autour des grands sites ainsi que les enjeux entourant la mise en valeur des attraits émergents. _____________________________________________________________________________ MOTS-CLÉS DE L’AUTEUR : sites patrimoniaux, attraits émergents, Machu Picchu, attractivité, perception
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".