MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2972625033 · doi:10.1108/tr-05-2019-0163

The tourist experience life cycle: a perspective article

2019· article· en· W2972625033 on OpenAlex
Rachel Dodds

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueTourism Review · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiverse Aspects of Tourism Research
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTourismDestinationsOriginalityPerspective (graphical)MarketingValue (mathematics)Tourist destinationsFocus (optics)BusinessAdvertisingSociologyGeographyComputer scienceQualitative researchSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to review the past literature of the tourist experience and propose a new model of behavior. Design/methodology/approach It is proposed that understanding of the visitors experience from a development standpoint may be useful in understanding how tourism destinations or indeed products may be experienced so differently. Therefore, a tourist experience life cycle has been put forth as a model. Findings This model may help to outline how tourists, like destinations, also go through a life cycle. The implications may help destinations better understand the different motivations of their visitors. Originality/value While the literature has discussed the tourism experience and how the customer experience has changed, there has been little focus on the longitudinal development of how the actual tourist experiences a destination.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.729
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.005

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.345 · 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