Relationships Between Source Capacity, Value to Use, Value for Money and Loyalty of Visitors for Tourism Destination in Vietnam
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to identify and adjust the competitiveness scale to suit Vietnam's tourism. Accordingly, with inheriting The Competitive Advantage Model of Porter (1990), the authors focus on determining relationships among source capacity, value to use, value for money, and loyalty of visitors for tourism destination. With inheritance resources, created resources, and support resources are elements of source capacity, thereby creating a competitive advantage under two angles: value to use and value for money. It is this competitive advantage that attracts and retains tourists, creating customer loyalty for Vietnam destinations. By the method of expert interviews, the author has adjusted the factors and observed the variables to suit the case study in the tourism industry with the research area in Vietnam. In particular, the results show that the observed variables for source capacity are inherited entirely as well as the loyalty scale. Meanwhile, the scale of value to use and value for money is supplemented with two items according to expert opinion, including many unique experiences, suitable for financial condition.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".