MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3040701173

Perception of Tour Operators on the Rural Tourism Products: To sell or not to sell?

2020· article· en· W3040701173 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mohd Salehuddin Mohd Zahari, Mohd Hafiz Hanafiah‬, Siti Noor Afiqah Akbar, Nur Adilah Md Zain

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of rural and community development · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiverse Aspects of Tourism Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTourismGovernment (linguistics)Rural tourismPerceptionMarketingAction (physics)BusinessSample (material)Rural areaTourism geographyGeographyPolitical sciencePsychology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study reports the empirical investigation of Malaysian tour operator's behaviour in promoting rural tourism products. The tour operator’s perception of rural tourism products and how they translate their perception into behaviour was tapped using a quantitative approach. The sample population was among the selected Malaysian tour operators selling inbound and domestic rural tourism packages. The findings revealed that rural tourism cultural, natural and historical products positively influence tour operators’ action behaviour. This promising indicator highlighted the varying consequences and implications not only for the individual tour operators but tourism organisations—tour operators and travel agencies—tourism policy makers and government authorities. Understanding the tour operator’s perceptions of the importance of rural tourism products is crucial in helping the government to collaborate with them in promoting Malaysian rural tourism products to the international market. Keywords: Rural tourism, cultural, natural, historical, tour operator, action behaviour

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations7
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of rural and community developmentSame topicDiverse Aspects of Tourism ResearchFrench-language works237,207