“The journey will be relaxed. You will watch television. Just like a VIP”: Misinformation, secrecy, and the information behaviour of repatriated migrants in Bangladesh
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper explores the information behaviour of repatriated migrants in Bangladesh in the context of their irregular migration. Using an exploratory qualitative research design, semi-structured interviews were conducted with eight repatriated migrants in Bangladesh. This study provides insights into the culturally situated, complicated information behaviour of repatriated migrants in Bangladesh. The findings of this study show that repatriated migrants did not seek any information in the context of their irregular migration. It is evident that factors such as unrealistic perceptions and expectations about life abroad, desperate desire to relocate to another country, and trust in smugglers and their agents played a key role in their information seeking in the context of their irregular migration. The study revealed that some participants were unaware of the risk of taking an irregular journey and deceived by the misinformation shared by their smugglers and their agents. Some interviewees even claimed not to attempt to move to Malaysia if they were aware of the heavy risks associated with the move. The concepts of “migration as gambling” and “Aladdin’s lamp” emerged in this study have some implications for local informational program development aiming to educate vulnerable rural population about the risk of irregular migration and connect them with reliable migrational information sources. The study identified some information grounds such as the Bazaar and Betel fields, which might be useful in offering informational programs at those grounds. The findings related to the information behaviour of repatriated migrants have potential implications for research in various disciplines, including library and information science, migrational studies, geography, and psychology.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".