MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4306175573 · doi:10.1002/pra2.628

Everyday Information Behavior of Marginalized Communities in the Global South: Informal Transportation as Example

2022· article· en· W4306175573 on OpenAlexaff
Ina Fourie, Naresh Kumar Agarwal, Diane H. Sonnenwald, Heidi Julien, Abebe Rorissa, Brian Detlor

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicICT in Developing Communities
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersVolvo Research and Educational FoundationsMakerere UniversityUniversity of Pretoria
KeywordsPublic relationsInformation behaviorPovertyDiversity (politics)Psychological interventionEveryday lifeEquity (law)Digital divideInformation sharingInclusion (mineral)SociologyPromotion (chess)Economic growthBusinessPolitical sciencePsychologySocial scienceInformation and Communications TechnologyPoliticsEconomicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Information science is increasingly focused on giving voice to marginalized communities, improving their daily lives, and contributing to Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI). However, challenges facing marginalized communities in the Global South are less frequently investigated, yet of great importance. Millions of people depend on information for essential everyday life activities such as transportation. Successful, timely daily commuting between home and work influences financial stability, family time, and safety. Everyday life information behavior as a research lens can reveal information activities, influencing factors, information sources, and contexts applying to informal transportation use by poorer socio‐economic groups. Theories of information behavior such as information poverty and information horizons can shed light. Understanding information behavior contexts, and how to bridge the digital divide and promotion of networking, sharing, and learning for marginalized populations through community‐led digital literacy training can help tailor interventions.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.078

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Association for Information Science and TechnologySame topicICT in Developing CommunitiesFrench-language works237,207