MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387860524 · doi:10.1002/pra2.948

Expanded Model of Everyday Information Practices with Information Avoidance in Digital Environments

2023· article· en· W4387860524 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mamiko Matsubayashi

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMisinformation and Its Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInformation seekingInformation behaviorPersonal information managementPsychologyConstruct (python library)Information seeking behaviorKnowledge managementInformation needsInformation systemContext (archaeology)Computer scienceAvoidance behaviourSocial psychologyHuman–computer interactionManagement information systemsInformation retrievalWorld Wide WebPolitical scienceDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Until recently, research on information behavior and practices has focused on a series of actions, including having information needs, seeking information to satisfy those needs, and using the acquired information to varying degrees. However, in digital environments with an enormous distribution of information, it is necessary to consider information practices by focusing on their relationship with negative behaviors, such as information avoidance. Based on the discourses by Japanese Canadian seniors on information behavior during the COVID‐19 pandemic, this study attempted to construct an expanded model of everyday information practices (EIP) that incorporates the concept of information avoidance into the EIP model proposed by Savolainen. Findings suggest that information avoidance is likely related to an individual's social context and that, as a result of information avoidance, different means of information acquisition are chosen from a person's stock of knowledge, resulting in different aspects of the individual's information practices.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.516
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.035
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.258 · 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.

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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Association for Information Science and TechnologySame topicMisinformation and Its ImpactsFrench-language works237,207