MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2340596894 · doi:10.1177/1467358415600212

Exploring the expectations and satisfaction derived from volunteer tourism experiences

2016· article· en· W2340596894 on OpenAlexaffabout
Karla Boluk, Carol Kline, Alicia Stroobach

Bibliographic record

VenueTourism and Hospitality Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTourism, Volunteerism, and Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFeelingThematic analysisTourismAccountabilityPublic relationsPsychologyQualitative researchSocial psychologyElement (criminal law)Investment (military)SociologyPolitical scienceSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this paper was to examine the satisfaction of voluntourists derived from various aspects of their trip. Framed within the Existence, Relatedness and Growth Theory, the paper examines volunteers’ motivations, expectations and satisfaction based on their financial and time investment volunteering with Volunteer Eco Students Abroad (VESA), the intereactions they had on the trip, and the extent to which travellers felt as though they contributed to community goals. In 2012, the researchers carried out in-depth, semi-structured interviews with 16 Canadian voluntourists following their time in St. Lucia, South Africa. A thematic analysis was used to interpret the data, resulting in three themes: ‘Evaluating Investment’, ‘Contribution to Community’ and ‘Opportunities and Reaffirmations’; sub-themes were matched with aspects of Existence, Relatedness and Growth Theory. Findings elicited several levels of expectations of voluntourists revealed through their feelings of satisfaction or dissatisfaction. On the lowest level, voluntourists expect adequate food and water whilst volunteering. Informants highlighted the various ways they raised fund for the trip, and this impacted their level of accountability for contributing to the community. Volunteers also expect volunteer organizations to be transparent regarding the use of funds and expressed dissatisfaction when this did not occur. Volunteers anticipated a feeling of connection between the hosts and themselves and were frustrated if they felt more time could have been allotted to working with community residents. Lastly, informants expected the experience to provide an opportunity for self-learning and professional development and overall were satisfied with this element of the trip.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations19
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTourism and Hospitality ResearchSame topicTourism, Volunteerism, and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207