MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3016223533 · doi:10.5267/j.msl.2020.3.028

The effect of perceived environment restorative qualities on Chinese visitors’ satisfaction in rural destination

2020· article· en· W3016223533 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jin Lu, Fuangfa Amponstira

Bibliographic record

VenueManagement Science Letters · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiverse Topics in Contemporary Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyBusinessMarketingAdvertisingSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With rapid economy development and increasing social competition, the majority of Chinese people living in the city is suffering from daily work and life stress. Due to the inflexible holiday system, Chinese city people prefer visiting a rural destination around the place where they live, which is identified as restorative environment, with the demand of rest and mental replenishment. In order to investigate how perceived rural destination environment qualities influence visitor's satisfaction, this empirical study conducted a survey on 258 visitors in two rural destinations in Zhejiang province, China. SEM was utilized to analyze the relationship between variables in the proposed conceptual model and bootstrap estimation was conducted to assess the mediation effect of mental recovery between PDRQs and visitors' satisfaction in rural destinations. The results indicate: Chinese visitors' perception of compatibility and fascination significantly and directly influence their satisfaction and the perception of compatibility, mentally away and fascination have indirect influence on visitors' satisfaction with mediation of mental recovery in rural destinations.

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)0.002
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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.302 · 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

Citations6
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueManagement Science LettersSame topicDiverse Topics in Contemporary ResearchFrench-language works237,207