MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2041217173 · doi:10.1080/10548408.2010.507151

Online Information Search Strategies: A Focus On Flights and Accommodations

2010· article· en· W2041217173 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Travel & Tourism Marketing · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFocus (optics)MarketingAccommodationTransactional leadershipProduct (mathematics)BusinessTransactional analysisAdvertisingConstructiveTourismConsumer informationOnline searchComputer sciencePsychologyWorld Wide WebProcess (computing)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT The problem of the research was to understand information search strategies that individuals utilized in online travel product purchases. Two products, flights and accommodations, were selected to examine each product's explanatory variables in online purchase behaviors. The results indicate online flight purchasers utilize direct information sources and focus on transactional attributes. Online accommodation purchasers utilize various types of sources; and they focus not only on transactional, but also informational and branding attributes. The study results support the constructive consumer choice processes theory and suggest some marketing tips for the airline and lodging industries.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.921
Threshold uncertainty score0.475

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.309 · 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