MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2051132657 · doi:10.1080/14927713.2013.842731

Savouring tourist experiences after a holiday

2013· article· en· W2051132657 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sebastian Filep, Dân Cao, Min Jiang, Terry DeLacy

Bibliographic record

VenueLeisure/Loisir · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiverse Aspects of Tourism Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContentmentKindnessTourismPsychologyThematic analysisSocial psychologyAdvertisingNatural (archaeology)GeographySociologyQualitative researchAnthropologyPolitical scienceArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Currently, there are no major models of savouring in leisure and tourism studies. This paper reports on an exploratory study that investigated how tourists reminisce about, or retrospectively savour, their holiday experiences. We aimed to identify which positive emotions are experienced by tourists when they reminisce about past holiday events and what types of tourist experiences are associated with their positive emotions. Using thematic content analysis, we examined 181 written travel blogs of a group of Chinese independent tourists following their trip to Australia. The emotion of joy was the most savoured emotion, followed by interest, contentment and love. Joy, interest and contentment were most commonly linked to experiences that involved observations of natural scenery, while love was the emotion that was linked to acts of kindness with the locals. The study reported in the paper supports existing knowledge on the relationship between experiencing positive emotions and being in nature.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations46
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLeisure/LoisirSame topicDiverse Aspects of Tourism ResearchFrench-language works237,207