MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2913825152

Interpreting destination image through theory building approach / Noraminin Khalid

2018· book-chapter· en· W2913825152 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Noraminin Khalid

Bibliographic record

VenueUiTM Institutional Repositories (Universiti Teknologi MARA) · 2018
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiverse Aspects of Tourism Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDepictionDestinationsTourismDestination imageExploratory researchGrounded theoryFace (sociological concept)Qualitative researchPerceptionContent analysisInterpretation (philosophy)AdvertisingSociologyGeographyPsychologySocial scienceVisual artsComputer scienceArtBusiness
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This qualitative study is an exploratory attempt at understanding destination image through the writings of the travel writers who have undergone the FAMiliarisation or FAM programs organised by Tourism Malaysia. The idea behind the program is for the writers to experience first hand specific destinations in Malaysia and then share their experiences through their travel writings. The main focus was the content of the articles or themes of particular magazines and their writings represented endorsed information. The data in the form of the travel articles (FAM articles) were collected with the assistance of Tourism Malaysia based on the suggested criteria established. FAM articles were collected for analyses representing writers from several countries including Australia, Canada, Brunei Darussalam, USA, United Kingdom and India to name a few. Using the qualitative method of content analysis and adapting the coding procedures of open, axial and selective codings from the grounded theory approach, this study analysed and interpreted selected travel articles written by the FAM writers. The findings are then integrated with the analysis of face-to-face interviews with international tourists and then further strengthened with literature. This study addresses the gaps between destination image theories and the depiction of such destination image by travel writers. It is postulated that writers will mould the perception of the destination and therefore enhance the understanding of destination image. Although the present depiction of destination image is very much relevant within most tourism contexts, what is perhaps not considered precisely is whether such interpretation still holds when the image is derived merely from textual data as they are interpreted by FAM writers. These writers provide the linkage between the destinations and the potential tourists. How they write, what they write, and their expressions of the destinations will influence potential tourists’ attractions to visit. What has yet to be addressed precisely also is the conceptualisation of the framework that describes the elements that form the destination image as it relates to a contextual perspective of Malaysia. The findings reveal that destination images of Malaysia can be divided into three main conceptualisations; a functional depiction of destination image through the portrayal of nature, festivals, people and history; the experiential values relating to excitement and emotional attachment, and the auxillary influence as shown by the spillover effect and FAMiliarity with specific places. The findings further reveal that such destination images lead to the possibility for undertaking psychographic segmentation of targeted travellers and ultimately emphasized the need for positioning strategies to be in place. This essentially led to the evolvement of possible destination branding and in the creation of destination loyalty. This study established that it was possible to derive destination image by interpreting the depth of the articles and through the expressions of the travel writers who very often narrated their experiences coherently through vivid depictions and emotions. It is suggested that future studies further test the evolving themes through empirical analyses that are more conclusive and statistically proven.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.009
Scholarly communication0.0080.005
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUiTM Institutional Repositories (Universiti Teknologi MARA)Same topicDiverse Aspects of Tourism ResearchFrench-language works237,207