MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Hospitality management students' cognitive style

2013· article· en· W2768232127 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Hans Otting

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch in Hospitality Management · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLearning Styles and Cognitive Differences
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcMaster University
KeywordsHospitalityCognitive styleHabitStyle (visual arts)PsychologyHospitality management studiesPreferenceCurriculumCognitionHospitality industryApplied psychologyMathematics educationPedagogySocial psychologyPolitical scienceTourism

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper reports on the cognitive style of students in a problem-based hospitality management curriculum at a university of applied sciences. A cognitive style is a student's preference of perceiving, processing, and evaluating information (Hayes and Allinson 1998). The cognitive style of the students was measured with the cognitive style indicator (CoSI) developed by Cools and Van den Broeck (2007). The findings suggest that hospitality management students are good planners who are organised, structured, resistant to change, and habit bound. Hospitality management students' scores on the other factors, creative style and knowing style, lag behind other work fields. The study also showed that variables like gender, year of study, or the wish to continue a career in the hospitality industry have no impact on the cognitive styles of the students.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.451
Teacher spread0.378 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch in Hospitality ManagementSame topicLearning Styles and Cognitive DifferencesFrench-language works237,207