MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2953219583 · doi:10.1108/jhtt-01-2018-0003

Travel review website usage: a cultural perspective

2019· article· en· W2953219583 on OpenAlex
Leonie Cassidy, Anja Pabel

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDigital Marketing and Social Media
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)MarketingTourismBusinessAdvertisingGeographyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: This study aims to investigate tourists’ propensity to use travel review websites (TRWs) during the pre- and post-travel stages from a cultural perspective. Design/methodology/approach: This quantitative study is guided by the positivist paradigm. Data were obtained from an online survey, focussing on Australia, Canada, India and Malaysia. Findings: The results indicate significant relationships between country of residence and the time research begins prior to an international or domestic holiday being undertaken; between country of residence and trust levels for information on TRWs; and country of residence and whether or not respondents post reviews on TRWs. These results are discussed using Hofstede’s cultural dimensions. Long-term orientation shows a moderate cultural influence of respondents’ trust of information on TRWs, while a country’s individualistic or collectivist orientation has a strong influence on respondents’ posting/not posting a review on a TRW. Research limitations/implications: Care should be taken when generalising the findings beyond the study population, as no randomisation occurred with survey distribution. Practical implications: The results of this study have implications for managers of tourism businesses wishing to better facilitate information-sharing behaviours of their customers through TRWs. Social implications: The cross-cultural comparisons used in this study add value to tourism studies, particularly when comparing Eastern and Western societies. Originality/value: The study adds to the knowledge base on consumer pre- and post-trip online behaviours, considering the effect of country of residence and any influence from Hofstede’s cultural dimensions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.332
Threshold uncertainty score0.301

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.303
Teacher spread0.294 · 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