MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2807248471 · doi:10.6000/1929-7092.2018.07.23

The Effects of Leisure Agricultural Experience Activities on Satisfaction: Empirical Evidence from Different Tourist Styles in Taiwan

2018· article· en· W2807248471 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Biing-Wen Huang, Yuchen Yang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Reviews on Global Economics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSport and Mega-Event Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEscapismTourismEntertainmentLeisure satisfactionAgricultureEmpirical researchRural tourismMarketingStructural equation modelingPsychologyBusinessSocioeconomicsGeographyAdvertisingSociologyTourism geographyPolitical scienceSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Leisure agricultural activities play an important role in rural tourism. The research presented in this research was used to investigate the impression of leisure agricultural activities on different groups of tourists. Using the four dimensions of the Experience Economy suggested by Pine and Gilmore (1999), this research analyzes the impacts of entertainment, educational, aesthetic, and escapism experiences on tourist satisfaction. The data used in the study were gathered by surveying 374 tourists in the leisure agricultural area of Lugu township in central Taiwan. By using factor analysis and cluster analysis, tourists in this study were categorized into two groups, namely, a ‘deep experience group’ and ‘moderate experience group,’ based on the degree to which they experienced the activities. Through the use of a structural equation model, the empirical results indicated that the correlation between the activities experienced and the degree of satisfaction were distinctive for each group of tourists.

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)0.003
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.303 · 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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Reviews on Global EconomicsSame topicSport and Mega-Event ImpactsFrench-language works237,207