MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407716853 · doi:10.1002/asi.24993

Connected pilgrims: A case study of the Motawif booking system on X

2025· article· en· W4407716853 on OpenAlexaff
Nadia Caidi, Deena Abul‐Fottouh, Jie Wu, A. B. GOEL

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Association for Information Science and Technology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDigital Games and Media
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorld Wide WebComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Hajj is the spiritual and religious journey of a lifetime for many Muslims around the world. In June 2022, the Saudi Ministry of Hajj and Umrah decided to introduce a new travel booking system that mandated pilgrims from Europe, America, Australia, and New Zealand to reserve directly their pilgrimage travels, thus bypassing the local Hajj travel operators. Additionally, Motawif was deployed just a few weeks before the 2022 Hajj. This announcement triggered a wave of panic among would‐be pilgrims and resulted in an intense social media conversation. This article examines the conversation that took place on Twitter (now X) for the period following the launch of Motawif and up until the completion of the 2022 Hajj. Using computational social science methods, we undertook several analyses of the Twitterspace to understand the perceptions of the would‐be pilgrims with the Motawif system. The study illuminates how forms of community organizing in online spaces (and associated information practices and discursive strategies) have contributed to reconstituting the Hajj pilgrim's identity and agency in ways rarely seen before among this community. Our findings also point to various strategies and information practices of opposition that enable connective action through solidarity and recognition of shared grievances.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Qualitativelow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0220.006
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.281 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designQualitative · Observational
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Association for Information Science and TechnologySame topicDigital Games and MediaFrench-language works237,207