Developing and validating a multidimensional tourist engagement scale (TES)
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
Customer engagement (CE) narrows the focus of experience to the interactive, value co-creative process between customers and company. Despite a few attempts measuring online engagement, we found no studies on fully operationalized engagement in the tourism destination. Considering the existing CE scales might not fully capture the scope of value co-creation process and its context-dependent nature, we proposed to develop a tourist engagement scale (TES) which incorporates more actors in value co-creation at the destination. Following the procedures of item generation, scale purification, and scale validation, we identified a 16-item, four-dimensional, second-order model of TES: social interaction, interaction with employees, relatedness, and activity-related tourist engagement (including immersed involvement and novelty-seeking). It provides various uses to DMOs and service providers, e.g. an assessment tool for tourist experience, a market segment tool, and a predictor to tourists’ behavioral intention. We contribute to the literature of tourist experience, value co-creation, and engagement study.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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