Discussion on the Relationship Between Characteristics of Self-Service Restaurants and Consumption Willingness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since changed in external environment and technology as well as diversified demands of customers, the innovation of dishes and services is necessary to attract customers. Therefore, based on literature analysis and empirical research, this study discussed the relationship among customers’ experience connotation to self-service restaurants, service characteristics, customers’ technology involvement, attractions of self-service restaurants, customers’ perceived values and customers’ consumption willingness; and further compared the difference on the relationship mode between the groups who are and are not willing to spend money at self-service restaurants. In this study, the consumers who were 15 or above in Taiwan and had eating-out experience were taken as the main respondents and the questionnaires were sent by staff to carry out the convenient sampling survey, and totally, 650 valid questionnaires were collected. Then, the consumers were divided into two groups: the group with certain consumption intentions and the group with uncertain consumption intentions, according to the condition whether they will be willing to spend money at self-service restaurants in the future, in order to conduct group pattern comparison. It is found from the results that the two groups are significantly different in the strength of the 3 relationship paths. Therein: (1) the customers’ technology involvement of the group with certain consumption intentions has significantly positive effects on the paths to the customers’ perceived values and is stronger than that of the group with uncertain consumption intentions, (2) the attractions of self-service restaurants to the group with certain consumption intentions have significantly positive effects on the paths to the customers’ perceived values and is stronger than that to the group with uncertain consumption intentions, (3) the customers’ perceived values of the group with certain consumption intentions have significantly positive effects on the paths to the customers’ consumption willingness and is stronger than that of the group with uncertain consumption intentions. From the study results, the consumption willingness models of both groups are also different. The results can be provided to the operators of self-service restaurants as the reference to make decisions.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".