An interregional extension of destination brand equity
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the 1990s, the Asia-Pacific region’s world market share of international travelers has increased, as America’s and Europe’s shares have fallen. China (People’s Republic of China) has become the world’s biggest tourism source market with an overseas spend of US$292 billion in 2015, fueling opportunities for the region and beyond. Now, Asia Pacific outbound travel is extending past short-haul interregional travel to long-haul destinations, specifically Europe. To realize this potential, European destinations need a better understanding of the Chinese traveler; their perceptions of destinations, awareness, and loyalty. This study measures the brand equity of Switzerland and Austria as perceived by Hong Kong Chinese tourists. Structural equation modeling results indicate that destination brand image and associations significantly impact brand loyalty, whereas destination awareness does not, contrary to past interregional research findings. Understanding the influence of brand components on overall brand equity supports the efficacy of the brand equity model for interregional destinations.
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.
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 | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it