MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3010783039 · doi:10.1177/1096348020910211

What Airbnb Host Listings Influence Peer-to-Peer Tourist Accommodation Price?

2020· article· en· W3010783039 on OpenAlex

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 & Tourism Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicSharing Economy and Platforms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccommodationRentingTourismBusinessListing (finance)Sharing economyPeer-to-peerMarketingPricing strategiesEconometricsEconomicsComputer scienceFinanceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recognizing that the pricing strategy of the newly emerging online shared accommodation industry would be different from that of the traditional hotel industry, this study attempted to identify the variables that are the main determinants of the peer-to-peer tourist accommodation price. Using a data set of Airbnb accommodation listings for Toronto, the study established a relationship between room pricing and various listing variables and identified a reduced number of listing attributes that influence the room price significantly. Focusing on a reduced number of important variables, Airbnb hosts can not only increase average profit but would also give tourists a better rental experience. Along with traditional multiple regressions approach, the study also applied two different approaches and found that the analysis of hedonic pricing using nonlinear and nonparametric approaches is quite promising.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.230
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.008
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.257 · 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