Understanding Medical Tourists’ Perception of Private Hospital Service Quality in Penang Island
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p class="1Body">Medical tourism is one of the most successful types of tourism in Penang Island. Traveling beyond borders to obtain medical treatments is referred to as medical tourism. The purpose of this paper is to identify medical tourists’ perception of service quality based on the three elements of core product, physical environment, and interaction. Qualitative analysis is used; and twelve respondents are interviewed from a selected private hospital in Penang Island. The study found that there is an overall positive perception of medical tourism in Penang Island and X hospital with a 100% of the respondents willing to make the same choice of destination and hospital in the future for the purpose of medical tourism. Factors such as communication, staff, hospital facilities, and service influenced the positive perception. The results show that there are a few negative factors affecting medical tourists’ perception such as: lack of following established procedures among hospital staff, hospital building problems, and lack of information for international patients.</p>
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it