MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2884798579 · doi:10.1108/tr-11-2017-0175

Discovering the hotel selection factors of vegetarians: the case of Turkey

2018· article· en· W2884798579 on OpenAlexaff
Sebahattin Emre Dilek, David A. Fennell

Bibliographic record

VenueTourism Review · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAgriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMarketingTourismBusinessOriginalitySanitationValue (mathematics)Environmentally friendlyAdvertisingGeographyPsychologyEngineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose The purpose of this study was to investigate the hotel selection preferences of vegetarians in Turkey. Design/methodology/approach The questionnaire used in this study had four main sections: animal and environmentally friendly hotel attributes; hotel features and facilities; hotel food and beverage services; and demographic and travel information of respondents. Data were collected by way of face-to-face questionnaires from 328 self-identified vegetarians who visited the first vegan/vegetarian event – “Didim VegFest” – in Turkey on 29-30 April 2017. Findings Eco-animal friendly hotels, customer requests and animal friendly and environmental ethics (main Factor 1); comfort and value, facilities and security, the natural environment and the staff and their services (main Factor 2); standards and sanitation, sensibility, atmosphere and knowledge (main Factor 3) were identified as the main hotel selection factors of vegetarians in Turkey. Originality/value This study is the first of its kind in the tourism literature.

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)0.001
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 score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations31
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTourism ReviewSame topicAgriculture Sustainability and Environmental ImpactFrench-language works237,207