Volunteer tourism: Exploring motivations, benefits, and reciprocity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Volunteer tourism has become an increasingly popular type of tourism that has been associated with providing an experience that positively impacts the tourist, host community, and the environment. Despite the good nature that can be associated with volunteer tourism there are many critiques that have addressed the effectiveness and real value of volunteer tourism. This paper provides a review of volunteer tourism using 7 Canadian student participants and 5 facilitators on a university student volunteer tourism trip to India. The purpose of this study was to gain a better understanding of volunteer tourism, explore motivations, perceived benefits, the role of reciprocity, and the role of the facilitators and community in the planning of this volunteer tourism experience. Qualitative research was used in this study in the form of semi-structured interviews with the students and the facilitators that were part of the experience. This led to an analysis of the effects of volunteer tourism on the students. The thesis also reviews the volunteer tourists' (student' s) motivations, the perceived benefits of volunteer tourism, the effect of reciprocity during this experience, and the role that facilitators played regarding planning, addressing challenges, and encouraging deeper under standing of the volunteer tourism experience.
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 | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".