MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2754443539 · doi:10.12735/jotr.v3n1p21

Children’s Preferences among Services and Amenities in Kids-Friendly Resorts: An Exploratory Study on American Tweens

2017· article· en· W2754443539 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hend M. Hamed

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Tourism and Recreation · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiverse Aspects of Tourism Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExploratory researchAdvertisingPsychologyBusinessMarketingGeographySociologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tweens are consumers who make their own choices about what to purchase or consume. Similarly, they are tourists who have their own opinion about where to spend their vacation and what activities to practice during their leisure time. Kids-friendly resorts have emerged targeting mainly kids with their tourism product, services and amenities relying on the strong influence that children have on their families. Tweens are one of the important segments targeted by kids-friendly resorts as a core tourist segment. This study investigates the alignment between the services and amenities offered by the kids- friendly resorts and the actual needs and desires of tweens in USA. In addition, it highlights the services and amenities preferred the most and those preferred the least by those tweens. Furthermore, it examines whether there are differences among the tweens’ preferences regarding the services and amenities in kids-friendly resorts due to difference in age or gender. The study proves the compatibility between the services and amenities in kids-friendly resorts and the tweens’ preferences. It also reveals that there are no significant differences among the tweens’ preferences due to difference in age or gender.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.095
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.310 · 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

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Tourism and RecreationSame topicDiverse Aspects of Tourism ResearchFrench-language works237,207