Tourism experience management research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – The essence of tourism is the development and delivery of travel and visitation experiences. This paper aims to provide a quantitative and qualitative assessment of articles in major tourism journals in order to enhance our understanding of the tourism experience, with a special emphasis on the management issues associated with delivering these experiences to destination visitors. Design/methodology/approach – Several leading tourism journals were evaluated to identify the articles that focused on tourism experiences. Content analysis was used to determine the quantitative extent of the contributions and the qualitative nature of the articles published in each journal. Findings – Despite growth in the total number of articles published by each major journal, there was no substantial increase in experience-related papers. The findings suggest that, despite its fundamental importance, experience-related research remains under-represented in the tourism literature. Research limitations/implications – While this paper focused on the “leading” tourism journals as defined by various studies in the past, other journals and other publications that target a specific niche readership may also have worthwhile contributions to the understanding of tourism experiences and related management issues. Future research should seek to accommodate this in an effort to acknowledge a more comprehensive list of journals and books. Originality/value – This is the first formal study to date that comprehensively addresses the contributions of leading tourism journals to the literature on tourism experiences. Understanding the nature of tourism experiences is of significant value to scholars and practitioners, since providing tourists with high-quality, memorable experiences constitutes the essence of tourism and tourism management.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.003 |
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".