MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3198333978 · doi:10.24043/isj.168

Measuring destination image of an Italian island: An analysis of online content generated by local operators and tourists

2021· article· en· W3198333978 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Valentina Marchi, A. Raschi

Bibliographic record

VenueIsland Studies Journal · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDigital Marketing and Social Media
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersRegione Toscana
KeywordsTourismPromotion (chess)Destination imageContent analysisAppealMarketingBusinessAdvertisingDestinationsPoint (geometry)Key (lock)GeographyComputer sciencePolitical scienceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The understanding of destination image is a key point for tourism enterprises, local authorities, and policy makers. This study explores the case of Capraia, a small island located in Tuscany, to analyze how tourists (tourism demand) and local operators (tourism supply) create and communicate the island’s online image. This research quantitatively examines online communication on the two sides of the tourism market to monitor the online destination image of the island of Capraia. To build on previous research in this area, this study adopts a web content mining approach to assess the characteristics of content published online. The main dimensions of destination image (as developed in the literature) are used as a basis to create a dictionary for automated content analysis. A total of 24 tourism promotion websites and 9,180 tourist Instagram posts were analyzed. Findings reveal discrepancies between the image proposed by local operators and that perceived by tourists. Local operators mostly communicate general information to discover the destination, while tourists prioritize communication based on emotional appeal and personal experience on the island. This research aims to provide support for local operators and policy makers in decisions relating to communication and in defining the island image.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.442
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.272 · 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

Citations5
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIsland Studies JournalSame topicDigital Marketing and Social MediaFrench-language works237,207