Investigating Tourists’ Fun-Eliciting Process toward Tourism Destination Sites: An Application of Cognitive Appraisal Theory
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
Previous studies have shown that destinations must distinguish themselves from competitors and develop experiential offerings that deliver memorable value to consumers. More and more consumers want experiential service during their travel. Despite the gradual increase in research on experiential consumption in tourism, no consensus has yet emerged on what factors of experiential value lead to positive behavioral outcomes in consumer cognitive appraisals. This study used the cognitive appraisal theory (CAT) to investigate the determinants of consumer emotional responses, as well as how evoked emotions affect behavior in tourism. Study findings contribute to the existing body of literature on the ability of CAT to illustrate how the experiential value of “fun” influences on-the-spot behavior. This study also helps tourism destination marketers by providing a clear picture of how to elicit positive emotions among tourists for a tourism destination that leads to positive behavioral outcomes.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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