MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2021354530 · doi:10.1002/jtr.594

What does the consumer want from a DMO website? A study of US and Canadian tourists' perspectives

2007· article· en· W2021354530 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Soojin Choi, Xinran Lehto, Joseph T. O’Leary

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Tourism Research · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDigital Marketing and Social Media
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTourismMarketingBusinessPreferenceInformation overloadConsumption (sociology)Destination marketingAdvertisingConsumer informationConsumer behaviourQuality (philosophy)Information qualityE-commerceInformation systemDestinationsSociologyEconomicsPolitical scienceWorld Wide WebComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Destination marketing organisations (DMOs) are facing intriguing challenges to provide quality information online in an era of information overload. Insufficient knowledge of tourist's online information preferences and search behaviour has hindered them from effective information management. This research aimed to examine consumers' perspectives of the information role of the DMOs and their preferences and attitudes towards what constitute engaging and relevant Web contents and functionalities for a DMO website. The results suggested that tourists' preference of information content varied across the different levels of DMO websites (country, state/province and city). In addition, the study revealed that travellers' information needs and behaviour change over the entire information consumption process, which include the before, during and post‐trip period. Implications for DMOs were discussed at the end. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.170
Threshold uncertainty score0.343

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0080.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.375 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations178
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Tourism ResearchSame topicDigital Marketing and Social MediaFrench-language works237,207