MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3206794841 · doi:10.1080/14927713.2021.1986420

Tourist loyalty to hot springs destination: the role of tourist motivation, destination image, and tourist satisfaction

2021· article· en· W3206794841 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lusianus Kusdibyo

Bibliographic record

VenueLeisure/Loisir · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiverse Aspects of Tourism Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTourismLoyaltyDestination imageMarketingBusinessNatural (archaeology)Consumer satisfactionAdvertisingDestinationsPsychologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Natural hot springs tourism is one of the least researched areas in tourism literature. This research aims to observe tourist loyalty to natural hot springs tourism through the roles of tourist motivation, destination image, and tourist satisfaction. A self-administered questionnaire was distributed to the respondents and a total of 404 valid responses were used for the analysis. The results show that all variables tested have positive and significant effects on tourist destination loyalty. Satisfaction is the most influential variable. Destination image does not directly affect loyalty, but it has a significant indirect effect through satisfaction. Tourist push motivation does not directly influence satisfaction; however, these two variables are indirectly and positively linked by destination image. These findings indicate that tourist satisfaction and the destination image are important variables that contribute to hot springs tourist destination loyalty. Therefore, destination managers should establish a higher tourist satisfaction level to sustain tourist loyalty.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.280 · 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

Citations25
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLeisure/LoisirSame topicDiverse Aspects of Tourism ResearchFrench-language works237,207