MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W49207684

Writing mobility: thoughts from a research project on British working holiday makers in Australia

2010· book-chapter· en· W49207684 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nick Clarke

Bibliographic record

VenueePrints Soton (University of Southampton) · 2010
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration, Aging, and Tourism Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStress (linguistics)IrishAnthemMedia studiesRefugeeGender studiesAdvertisingHistoryPolitical sciencePsychologySociologyLawArt history
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

I remember a young woman with an Irish accent and a Thai sarong draped over her shoulders. She was talking to a man with a Canadian flag on his backpack. They were competing with travel stories, and sharing pub-quiz knowledge of Australia and other places. In the background, a couple of young men wearing Premiership football shirts sang the Dutch national anthem. And a Japanese woman passed by dragging a bright pink suitcase on wheels behind her. I remember conversations about the future. Someone listed the places they wanted to visit before they died. Someone else detailed their own plans, which involved getting married, buying a house, having kids, and growing old in the same place they grew up in, surrounded by family and old friends. I remember a young man with a neuropathic bladder. He was reluctant to leave the country in which his condition was diagnosed. He worried that he might not get the catheters he needed as easily elsewhere. I remember news of a detention centre in the middle of the desert, where refugees from other countries were held behind razor wire for years on end.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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 score0.144
Threshold uncertainty score0.286

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0210.007
Scholarly communication0.0080.005
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0020.005
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 head0.129
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.213 · 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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueePrints Soton (University of Southampton)Same topicMigration, Aging, and Tourism StudiesFrench-language works237,207