MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Cruise Ship Itineraries: an Investigation of the Effect of Itinerary on Cruise Pricing

2022· article· en· W4210602441 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Scott Lee, Collin Ramdeen, Michael J. Collins

Bibliographic record

VenueTourism Culture & Communication · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCruise Tourism Development and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCruiseGeographyEnvironmental scienceOceanographyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigated cruise ship stateroom pricing to determine if cruise ship itinerary has a significant effect on stateroom pricing. The study analyzed pricing data for cruise ship voyages originating and returning to a North American port. Cruise prices were reduced to a price per day for all voyages and linear regression analysis was used to investigate if cruise ship itinerary had a significant effect on cruise ship pricing. A linear regression analysis of the data revealed that cruise ship itineraries have a significant effect on cruise ship stateroom pricing, and the regression model explained a significant proportion (31%) of the variance in cruise ship stateroom pricing. Hawaii and Alaska cruise itineraries reported the highest mean cruise price per day among the itineraries investigated. West Coast Mexico and Western Caribbean cruise itineraries reported the lowest mean cruise price per cruise day among the itineraries investigated. Northern itineraries (Alaska, Canada/New England, Bermuda) reported a higher mean cruise price per cruise day than do the cruise itineraries further south (Caribbean, Bahamas, Cuba, Mexico). To date, the effect of cruise line itinerary on cruise pricing has not been explored in academic research. This study has strong implications for better understanding of the effect of different cruise itineraries on cruise line pricing.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.515
Threshold uncertainty score0.923

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTourism Culture & CommunicationSame topicCruise Tourism Development and ManagementFrench-language works237,207