MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3199255102 · doi:10.5430/jbar.v10n2p13

Service Robots Usage in Marketing Hospitality in China

2021· article· en· W3199255102 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Ayse Begum Ersoy, Ziqi Cui

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Business Administration Research · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI in Service Interactions
Canadian institutionsCape Breton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHospitalitySocial distanceMarketingService (business)DistancingBusinessCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)RobotPublic relationsField (mathematics)Interpersonal communicationChinaComputer sciencePsychologyPolitical scienceArtificial intelligenceTourismSocial psychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since the coronavirus disease 2019(COVID-19) has had brought severe impact on all aspects of the world. A series of interpersonal distancing methods such as ensuring effective and safe social distancing among people, wearing masks, and traffic lockdown measures are also continuing to take effect to curb the continuing outbreak of the COVID-19 (“Advice for the public on COVID-19”, 2020). In response to the globally spread of COVID-19, many advanced technologies in the field of Artificial Intelligence (AI) were applied rapidly and played an essential role in the operation for several months. There are many different leading technology categories in the field of artificial intelligence and many different sub-categories within each main technology categories. Moreover, since the AGI technology does not yet reach the basic human intelligence level, this study will focus on the impact of service robots, which are already widely used in the NAI application category, on hospitality marketing in the current situation in China. In this paper the aim is to assess the effectiveness of use of service robots in Marketing Hospitality Industry during the pandemic through a quantitative study.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.324 · 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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Business Administration ResearchSame topicAI in Service InteractionsFrench-language works237,207