MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3007898947 · doi:10.5267/j.msl.2020.2.013

Examining the structural relationships of destination image and tourist satisfaction

2020· article· en· W3007898947 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hoang Ba Huyen Le, Thi Binh Le, Huy Chinh Le, Quang Hieu Le

Bibliographic record

VenueManagement Science Letters · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiverse Aspects of Tourism Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTourismDestination imageImage (mathematics)Computer scienceMarketingBusinessAdvertisingPsychologyDestinationsComputer visionGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Image destination is one of the most important factors to attract and retain tourists.An enticing destination image promotes the tourist's experience and creates satisfaction that encourages tourists to return.The purpose of this study is to assess the impact of destination image and the factors that constitute the destination image on tourist satisfaction at a tourist destination.Cronbach's Alpha test methods, Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA), Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) were used in the study.Primary database was used as a result of the survey involving 500 tourists at the mountainous destinations in Thanh Hoa province.The results of the study demonstrated that destination images positively impact tourists' satisfaction.Based on the study results in the article, we proposed some key solutions to strengthen propaganda and promotion for relevant destinations; to improve the quality of tourism infrastructure; to create and diversify tourism products; to enhance security measures for greater safety and further improvement of tourist satisfaction.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations13
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueManagement Science LettersSame topicDiverse Aspects of Tourism ResearchFrench-language works237,207