MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

What is Home? The Perspectives of Traveling Professional Workers in Vietnam

2019· article· en· W2944283975 on OpenAlexaff
My Nguyen Dien Tran, Adam Weaver

Bibliographic record

VenueTourism Culture & Communication · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration, Aging, and Tourism Studies
Canadian institutionsNiagara College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRelocationHospitalitySociologyPublic relationsTourismContext (archaeology)Hospitality industryPerceptionPhenomenonMarketingBusinessPolitical sciencePsychologyGeographyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Defining home has become a complex matter in a mobile world. With many people now able to move fairly freely and having a number of options with respect to where they can reside, the conventional concept of home that links it to one particular place is no longer as useful. Drawing from a qualitative study of 34 traveling professional workers (TPWs) in Da Nang and Hoi An in Vietnam, the article explores how home is perceived among this group of international migrants. TPWs think of themselves as having more than one home. The article also distinguishes between two related notions: "temporary home" and "permanent home." Key factors that can influence the TPWs' perception of home are identified, including physical exposure to the place, social relationships, a sense of belonging, and employment. Overall, the article explores the concept of home—settling and dwelling—among a group of professional workers employed within the tourism and hospitality industry who are pursuing their careers in a place other than their original home. The concept of home has evolved for migrants who are highly mobile and whose profession offers them opportunities to work internationally; in this context, home is a multifaceted phenomenon. Home has to be considered in relation to relocation as well as being tied, even if temporarily, to a specific place.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.175
Threshold uncertainty score0.860

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.292 · 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.

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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTourism Culture & CommunicationSame topicMigration, Aging, and Tourism StudiesFrench-language works237,207