Information Hippies, Google-Fu Masters, and Other Volunteer Tourists in Thailand: Information Behaviour in the Liminoid
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using social positioning theory and the concept of the liminoid, the objectives of this qualitative research project were to 1) investigate how social positioning affects the information behaviour of volunteer tourists; 2) determine what effects culture shock, physical location, gender, technical skill, and previous intercultural education and/or experiences have on the information behaviour of volunteer tourists; and finally, 3) suggest how non-governmental organizations can use the research findings to assist volunteer tourists to successfully undertake their placements. The results emphasize the importance of developing a theory of liminoidal information behaviour, in order to explore how people in the liminoid – a place between cultures where identities are often suspended – interact with information.À l'aide de la théorie du positionnement social et du concept de la liminalité, l'objectif de ce projet de recherche qualitatif est 1) d'investiguer comment le positionnement social influence le comportement informationnel des touristes bénévoles; 2) de déterminer quels sont les effets du choc culturel, de l'emplacement physique, du sexe, des aptitudes techniques et de l'éducation ou de l'expérience interculturelle préalable sur le comportement informationnel des touristes bénévoles; et finalement, 3) de suggérer comment les organisations non gouvernementales peuvent se servir des résultats de la recherche pour aider les touristes bénévoles à mener à bien leurs activités. Les résultats insistent sur l'importance de développer une théorie du comportement informationnel liminal afin d'explorer comment les gens se trouvant dans cet état, un endroit entre les cultures où l'identité est souvent suspendue, interagissent avec l'information.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".