MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4213171208 · doi:10.5430/jct.v11n2p90

Identifying Competencies for Leisure and Hospitality Curriculum in a Rural Region

2022· article· en· W4213171208 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Raymond A. Dixon, Emilija Jovanovska-Stanton

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Curriculum and Teaching · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicHospitality and Tourism Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHospitalityBusinessMarketingHospitality industryCurriculumService (business)Customer satisfactionProduct (mathematics)Tertiary sector of the economyCustomer servicePublic relationsTourismKnowledge managementPsychologyGeographyPolitical scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This case study describes how competencies that are common across entities that operate in the leisure and hospitality industry in North Central Idaho were identified. The leisure and hospitality industry is crucial to the economy of many rural regions with scenic surroundings. Tourists’ satisfaction, however, depends on their experiences with frontline staff in the industry and service encounters are among the significant factors for customer satisfaction. Developing curriculum that leads to the proper training of frontline customer service representatives is important. A groupware process using workers in the leisure and hospitality sector was used to identify duties, tasks, general knowledge, skills, and attitudes for a guest relations agent. Issues and future trends were also identified. Results show half of the duties referenced essential interaction with customers, such as communicating to support customers and team, providing customer service, providing product/service/organization information, and providing customer assistance for local and regional activities. Trends and issues also point to the need to be prepared for factors such as outbreak of disease that may affect the operations in the sector.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.183
Threshold uncertainty score0.423

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Curriculum and TeachingSame topicHospitality and Tourism EducationFrench-language works237,207