MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7132179286

Destination Helsingør:Helsingør i rejsehistorisk perspektiv, c. 1500-1970

2023· article· da· W7132179286 on OpenAlexaff
Aske Laursen Brock

Bibliographic record

VenueMinistry of Culture Research Portal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageda
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEuropean Cultural and National Identity
Canadian institutionsMusée de la Civilisation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSound (geography)Tourist attractionSmall townCharterInstitutionDestinationsGovernment (linguistics)TourismTown councilFoundation (evidence)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines how the reasons for visiting Elsinore have changed over the centuries and investigates how Elsinore fits into the evolution of travel on a larger scale. Historically, Elsinore has been one of the most visited destinations in Denmark. Erik I founded the town as a destination when he granted its charter in 1426; it was intended to become a town for travelers. The majority of visitors were compelled to come to Elsinore to pay the sound toll, but this institution created a flow of people attracted to the town for its services and industry. Throughout the centuries, migrants, merchants, diplomats, soldiers, artisans, and common folk formed the foundation for the town’s existence. In turn, the many travelers – mainly traveling out of necessity rather than for pleasure – who arrived in Elsinore during the early modern period, unwittingly created a town that itself became an attraction to travelers. The rise of leisure travel almost coincided with the dismantling of the sound toll in 1857. Without the sound toll, the town was in dire need of a new source of income, and the tourists who flocked to the area became a part of the solution.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.167

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0500.012

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 head0.155
GPT teacher head0.448
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMinistry of Culture Research PortalSame topicEuropean Cultural and National IdentityFrench-language works237,207