Marketing Your Hotel to and through Intermediaries
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
Meeting planners and travel agents could become an even more important distribution channel than they already are for hotels, provided that lodging operators understand the factors that create value for those important intermediaries. As part of Cornell's broad-based survey of best practices in the U.S. lodging industry, researchers conducted a survey to discover the hotel attributes and practices that create value for travel agents and meeting planners. The study found that the most important factor in the lodging transaction with intermediaries is a hotel's ability to make the hotel booking process as smooth as possible, including a problem-free stay for the clients. While location is, of course, the key factor in the intermediaries' choice of a hotel for their clients, travel agents indicated that the quality of communications, the hotel's brand name or reputation, and the quality of deals or incentives were also important in creating value in the booking transaction. While a good price is important, meeting planners additionally consider meeting and convention services and food-service quality as essential to creating value in a hotel transaction.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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