Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The study of migration in the countryside, particularly in Southeast Asian developing countries, has been heavily focused on one-way out-migration of people with smallholder farming backgrounds to work in cities or even abroad. Recently, however, with improvements in infrastructure that allow intensified flows of commodities and information, as well as enhanced personal mobility, rural migration processes have become increasingly complex and dynamic. A particularly intriguing phenomenon is the migration of urban middle-class residents away from the city. Such newcomers bring with them different lifestyles, values, and expectations about the countryside, both in terms of its landscape and its social relations. This article will explore an example in the peri-urban zone around Chiang Mai, Thailand. The author argues that the arrival of newcomers in rural settings has created a new set of class relations, rooted more in culture than in relations of production. This argument is illustrated through an analysis of everyday encounters based on ethnographic observations in a village where the author lived from 2007 to 2009. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author gratefully acknowledges financial support from the Thailand Research Fund through the Royal Golden Jubilee PhD Program and from the Challenge of the Agrarian Transition in Southeast Asia Program (ChATSEA), supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. She also acknowledges the invaluable support of her PhD supervisor, Professor Yos Santasombat, Chiang Mai University, Thailand. Thanks also to editorial advice from Philip Kelly and Philip Hirsch and helpful suggestions from two referees. Notes 1. Hirsch Citation1990; Singhanetra-Renard Citation1999; Kelly Citation2000; Rigg Citation2001. 2. Rigg Citation1994. 3. Nartsupha Citation1991. 4. Marsden et al. Citation1993. 5. Wilson and Rigg Citation2003. 6. Jaikeng Citation2008. 7. Rigg and Ritchie Citation2002. 8. For background on this issue, see www.tourismthailand.org/see-do/activities/cultural-exploration/local-lifestyle/cat/1/; accessed 6 July 2010. 9. For background on this issue, see www.sufficiencyeconmy.org/old/en/; accessed 6 July 2010. 10. For background on this issue, see www.nesdb.go.th/Default.aspx?tabid=62; accessed 24 July 2010. 11. For background on this issue, see Thai Post, 2 July 2010. 12. Santasombat Citation2008; Rigg Citation2001. 13. For background on this issue, see www.rdic.info/report.php?id=graph07&year=2551&loc_id=3; accessed 6 July 2010. 14. Rigg Citation2002. 15. One rai equals 1,600 square meters, or 0.16 hectares. 16. For example, see Singhanetra-Renard Citation1999, whose case study was in Mae Sa, thirteen kilometers north of Chiang Mai City. 17. Evans Citation1993. 18. Baudrillard Citation2001. 19. Bourdieu Citation1997.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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 it