MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3144291512 · doi:10.18280/ijsse.110105

Emergency Preparedness within the Hotel Industry: A Case Study of Wuhan City, China

2021· article· en· W3144291512 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lihui Wu, Huali Xia, Sarina Bao

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Safety and Security Engineering · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisaster Management and Resilience
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHubei UniversityHubei University of Education
KeywordsPreparednessEmergency managementChinaBusinessHospitality industryResilience (materials science)HospitalityTourismRespondentMarketingPublic relationsGeographyEconomic growthPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The hospitality industry is one of the most vulnerable to emergency events and can be highly affected by various hazards. Within the hospitality industry, hotels are faced with multi-crises and disasters. Emergency preparedness is one of the most efficient ways to deal with emergencies and increase the resilience of the businesses, especially in high-risk areas. This research aims to identify the main risks that may threaten hotels and investigate the state of emergency preparedness of “five-star” hotels in Wuhan city, China, by conducting interviews among general manager and sending questionnaires to safety and security managers in the hotel sectors. Findings show that Wuhan’s hotels are exposed to a wide range of risks, and all of the respondent five-star hotels have plans or frameworks prepared for crises and disasters. Results indicate that there is an overall high level of preparedness for crises and disasters in five-star hotels in Wuhan, China. Findings also reveal that many of the challenges facing hoteliers are connected to emergency communication and tourist-oriented disaster preparedness planning. On the basis of the results, implications are discussed. It is hoped that this paper will shed light on emergency preparedness for hotel industry.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.186

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Safety and Security EngineeringSame topicDisaster Management and ResilienceFrench-language works237,207