MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2338228330 · doi:10.5539/ass.v12n5p54

Identifying and Ranking Health Tourism Development Barriers in Iran Using Fuzzy VIKOR Method

2016· article· en· W2338228330 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mohammad R. Taghizadeh, Hamid Barazandeh

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Social Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Healthcare and Medical Tourism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRanking (information retrieval)VIKOR methodTourismQuality (philosophy)Multistage samplingFuzzy logicTourist attractionBusinessMarketingGeographyComputer scienceStatisticsMathematicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present research is an applied study which employed a descriptive-correlation method. After a review of the related literature and survey of opinions of health tourism industry experts, the considered criteria in evaluation and ranking health tourism barriers were determined. Subsequently, 4 criteria (price, quality, accessibility, and proper time) were selected as the most important criteria. Using purposeful sampling method, out of cities and regions with health tourism attraction, four cities were selected as the most important cities with health tourism attraction. Using Fuzzy VIKOR method, quality was found to be the highest importance and proper time was determined as the lowest important criterion. Among sub-indices, improper medical quality was found to have the highest importance (weight). Among the selected cities, Mazandaran was found to have the highest priority. Shiraz, Tabriz and Mashhad, then, had the highest importance, respectively, in terms of health tourism development barriers.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.122
GPT teacher head0.499
Teacher spread0.377 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations12
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Social ScienceSame topicGlobal Healthcare and Medical TourismFrench-language works237,207