MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2126906755 · doi:10.1177/1938965509336809

Exploring the Use of the Abbreviated Technology Readiness Index for Hotel Customer Segmentation

2009· article· en· W2126906755 on OpenAlexaff
Liana Victorino, Ekaterina V. Karniouchina, Rohit Verma

Bibliographic record

VenueCornell Hospitality Quarterly · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCustomer Service Quality and Loyalty
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMarket segmentationProfiling (computer programming)MarketingBusinessIndex (typography)SegmentationHospitality industryHospitalityCustomer serviceService (business)Computer scienceArtificial intelligenceTourismWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Traditional tools used for segmenting hotel clientele rely on demographic and hotel-use characteristics (such as desired room type). However, with the emergence of self-service technologies and with technology-based components added to the list of hotels' service offerings, the authors propose using the abbreviated Technology Readiness Index (TRI) to improve the effectiveness of customer profiling, not only for technology use but also more generally for market segmentation. The abbreviated TRI was found to be a useful segmentation tool as it allows managers to form cohesive customer segments, each with a particular attitude toward technology and each with its own demographic characteristics and usage patterns. This study will help managers tailor their technology offerings to the needs and preferences of different segments based on their comfort with technology.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.106
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.151 · 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

Citations75
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCornell Hospitality QuarterlySame topicCustomer Service Quality and LoyaltyFrench-language works237,207