MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2209457218 · doi:10.5267/j.msl.2015.12.001

Destination bonding: Hybrid cognition using Instagram

2015· article· en· W2209457218 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Arup Kumar Baksi

Bibliographic record

VenueManagement Science Letters · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDigital Marketing and Social Media
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitionComputer sciencePsychologyCognitive psychologyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Empirical research has identified the phenomenon of destination bonding as a result of summated physical and emotional values associated with the destination. Physical values, namely natural landscape & other physical settings and emotional values, namely the enculturation processes, have a significant role to play in portraying visitors' cognitive framework for destination preference. The physical values seemed to be the stimulator for bonding that embodies action or behavior tendencies in imagery. The emotional values were the conditions that lead to affective bonding and are reflected in attitudes for a place which were evident in text narratives. Social networking on virtual platforms offers the scope for hybrid cognitive expression using imagery and text to the visitors. Instagram has emerged as an application-window to capture these hybrid cognitions of visitors. This study focuses on assessing the relationship between hybrid cognition of visitors expressed via Instagram and their bond with the destination. Further to this, the study attempts to examine the impact of hybrid cognition of visitors on the behavioral pattern of prospective visitors to the destination. The study revealed that sharing of visual imageries and related text by the visitors is an expression of the physico-emotional bonding with the destination. It was further established that hybrid cognition strongly asserts destination bonding and has been also found to have moderating impact on the link between destination bonding and electronic-word-of-mouth.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.638
Threshold uncertainty score0.561

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations10
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueManagement Science LettersSame topicDigital Marketing and Social MediaFrench-language works237,207