MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2790155487 · doi:10.1177/1356766718757789

Luxurious or economical? An identification of tourists’ preferred hotel attributes using best–worst scaling (BWS)

2018· article· en· W2790155487 on OpenAlex
Bona Kim, Seongseop Kim, Brian King, Cindy Yoonjoung Heo

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal Of Vacation Marketing · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiverse Aspects of Tourism Research
Canadian institutionsMount Saint Vincent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSelection (genetic algorithm)Identification (biology)MarketingBusinessHotel industryAdvertisingTask (project management)Balance (ability)Consumer behaviourMultidimensional scalingTourismEconomicsComputer sciencePsychologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article explores consumer tendencies to opt for luxury or economy hotels by identifying their most and least important selection attributes. The researchers investigate how sociodemographic and behavioral characteristics influence traveler assessments of hotel attributes. In explaining consumer hotel selection preferences, the researchers used an unconditional method—best–worst scaling (BWS). Based on an analysis of responses from 397 luxury hotel customers and 351 economy hotel customers in the United States, it was found that the two groups perceive hotel attributes differently. Differentials were also identified on the basis of gender, income, and frequency of purchase. While acknowledging that the task is complex, there is an urgent need to identify the factors influencing hotel selection, because hoteliers need to attract new markets and also balance this by retaining existing patrons. The findings extend existing literature by applying BWS to the identification of hotel selection attributes.

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 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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.368
Threshold uncertainty score0.631

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.114
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.294 · 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