MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2149449335 · doi:10.1002/jtr.721

Understanding and meeting the challenges of consumer/tourist experience research

2009· article· en· W2149449335 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

VenueInternational Journal of Tourism Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiverse Aspects of Tourism Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTourismExtant taxonEmpirical researchFace (sociological concept)MarketingField (mathematics)SociologyPsychologyBusinessSocial sciencePolitical scienceEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper seeks to provide a framework that will help us identify and better understand the major challenges we face in consumer/tourist experience research. These challenges have both theoretical and managerial dimensions. Based on an extensive and comprehensive review of the current literature in the field, we have categorised extant knowledge into six main streams of theoretical thinking and empirical research. These streams were identified as the fundamentals of the experience, experience‐seeking behaviours, methodologies used in experience research, the nature of specific tourism experiences, managerial issues in the design and delivery of experiences, and the evolutionary trail of experience thinking. Copyright © 2009 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.

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)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.447
Threshold uncertainty score0.923

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.459
GPT teacher head0.515
Teacher spread0.056 · 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