Preferred travel experiences of foodies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A large-scale sample of food lovers accessed by an online survey, which followed a qualitative focus group study, employed the photo elicitation technique to investigate their preferences for travel experiences. This technique identified top choices both for food-related and other types of urban, nature-oriented and active recreational pursuits. Overall, the most popular experience sought was described as ‘enjoy regional cuisine in a local restaurant’ and depicted a couple dining informally with a waterfront backdrop. The photo conveyed the romantic, authentic and informal messages all at once. More detailed analysis revealed significant differences according to respondent country of residence and previous food-related travel. Specifically, the most experienced food tourists were the most likely to select food festivals and meeting/learning from chefs. Those who had travelled less for food experiences had more general, leisure-oriented preferences that included nature and heritage. Results have implications for precise targeting at food tourists; the packaging of experiences; and destination development, branding and promotion. A number of methodological and theoretical issues are discussed, including the issue of how photos communicate messages and their use in marketing.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".