MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2514873150 · doi:10.1080/14775085.2016.1218787

Factors effecting destination and event loyalty: examining the sustainability of a recurrent small-scale running event at Banff National Park

2016· article· en· W2514873150 on OpenAlexafffund
Elizabeth Halpenny, Cory Kulczycki, Farhad Moghimehfar

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sport & Tourism · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSport and Mega-Event Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ReginaUniversity of Northern British ColumbiaUniversity of Alberta
FundersParks Canada
KeywordsLoyaltyOperationalizationTourismNational parkPsychologyConceptualizationSocial psychologyMarketingScale (ratio)Context (archaeology)SustainabilityAdvertisingGeographyBusinessComputer scienceEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An important form of economic sustainability for tourism businesses is customer loyalty. Using a sample of 387 active sport tourists, factors that influence destination and event tourism loyalty are reported on in this paper. Thirty-six per cent of destination loyalty's variance was explained – operationalized as intentions of active sport tourists to revisit and recommend Banff National Park (NP). Thirty-one per cent of event loyalty's variance was explained – operationalized as participation in future offerings of an annual small-scale running race, Melissa's Road Race, located in the park. Destination loyalty was directly and positively predicted by park attachment and indirectly influenced by event attachment, followed by nature-related travel motives, frequency of visits to the park and history of engagement in the race. Event loyalty was directly and positively predicted by event attachment and racers' views regarding the appropriateness of Banff NP as a race context and indirectly by history of race participation. Running travel motives, perceived value of park entry and event fees failed to predict loyalty intentions. Two models were used to explore the 'correct' conceptualization of relationships between event attachment and park attachment. The model that depicted event attachment as an antecedent to park attachment demonstrated better fit with the data, and thus suggests support for the proposition that attachments which develop for special events may in turn support the development of destination attachment.

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)0.005
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.314

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 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

Citations37
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sport & TourismSame topicSport and Mega-Event ImpactsFrench-language works237,207