MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200622276 · doi:10.18280/ijsdp.160709

The Impact of Destination Image on Tourist Behavior: Karbala as a Case Study

2021· article· en· W4200622276 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Zuhier Abbas Azeez

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiverse Aspects of Tourism Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVisitor patternDestination imageTourismPersonalityAdvertisingMarketingDestinationsPsychologySample (material)CognitionBusinessSocial psychologyGeographyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The destination image is regarded as one of the elements affecting visitors' choices in selecting tourist locations that satisfy their wants and aspirations in a way that corresponds to their expectations of such places. The destination image influences tourist behavior by stimulating tourist desires to travel and engage in tourist activities, as well as influencing that behavior in the travel decision-making process during the pre-trip, trip, and post-trip phases. The destination image is also linked to visitor satisfaction with regard to their appraisal of their travel experience and the extent to which that experience meets or comes near to their earlier expectations. Therefore, the current study looks at the image and personality of religious, tourist, and commercial brands, as well as how they connect to future tourist behavior. The study considered Karbala city, Iraq, as a case study. The study was based on the in-filed study technique, which was represented by a questionnaire that was delivered to the study sample, which consisted of seven first-class hotels in Karbala city, with 40 copies of the questionnaire handed over to the administrative personnel at these hotels. The study discovered that the cognitive image, emotional image, and destination personality all had different effects on global image and behavioral intentions for first-time and recurrent visitors. Additionally, the findings show that the qualitative remarks focused heavily on attractions, culture, and the environment. The practical consequences are explored, and destination personality and behavioral outcomes for first-time and recurrent visitors were designed and evaluated independently.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.068

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.369 · 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

Citations11
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Sustainable Development and PlanningSame topicDiverse Aspects of Tourism ResearchFrench-language works237,207