MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2623698951 · doi:10.5539/ibr.v10n7p8

Managing DMOs through Storytelling: A Model Proposal for Network and Value Co-creation in Tourism

2017· article· en· W2623698951 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Silvia Gravili, Pierfelice Rosato, Antonio Iazzi

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Business Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiverse Aspects of Tourism Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStorytellingTourismPromotion (chess)NarrativeService-dominant logicCo-creationValue (mathematics)Knowledge managementSociologyBusinessProcess (computing)Service (business)MarketingComputer sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The rise of new business models based on shared content and experience has required tourism destinations to adopt appropriate tools for the construction and promotion of their identity based on sociality, emotions, interaction and connectivity. The aim of this paper is to analyse actors, actions, processes and relations related to the adoption and development of storytelling practices in tourism destination management, analysing critical aspects linked to the generation of content and the narration of territories. As an attempt to understand the processes of innovation and value-creation underlying the development of storytelling in destination management (“destination telling”), the Service Dominant Logic, and the actor-network theory interpretative framework have been adopted. The study was conducted following the qualitative methodology of multiple case studies. In view of the interviews and the analyses conducted, Destination Telling preconditions, contents, managerial criteria and outcomes have been identified, in reference to each of the three stages (“planning”, “narration” and “assessment”) the process has to be split. Finally, managerial implications for an involving construction and sharing of stories to happen have been examined and discussed.

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.888
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.107
GPT teacher head0.466
Teacher spread0.358 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations9
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Business ResearchSame topicDiverse Aspects of Tourism ResearchFrench-language works237,207