MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156123011 · doi:10.5539/ass.v11n4p126

Investigating Revisit Intentions for the Boutique Hotels of Penang-A UNESCO World Heritage Site

2015· article· en· W2156123011 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yen-Nee Goh

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Social Science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCustomer Service Quality and Loyalty
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversiti Sains Malaysia
KeywordsTourismMarketingTheory of planned behaviorVariety (cybernetics)DestinationsBusinessAdvertisingWorld heritageControl (management)Norm (philosophy)GeographyPolitical scienceEconomicsManagementComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The growth in the number and variety of boutique hotels in tourist destinations has stimulated a wide range of research studies. Nevertheless, within Malaysia, the area remains under studied. In 2008, George Town, a popular heritage destination in Malaysia, was listed as a UNESCO world heritage site, and since then the number of boutique hotels and tourist arrivals have steadily grown. But, to date, there has been no investigation of the determinants of tourists’ revisit intention to boutique hotels. Such a study is timely and needed. Based on the theory of planned behaviour (TPB) as its theoretical foundation, this study investigates the determinants of customers’ revisit intention for boutique hotels. The findings from 78 completed questionnaires indicate that attitude, subjective norm and customer satisfaction influence customers’ revisit intention. Surprisingly, the effect of perceived behavioural control and overall image upon customer revisit intention was not significant.

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)0.003
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 score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations21
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Social ScienceSame topicCustomer Service Quality and LoyaltyFrench-language works237,207