MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4221013768 · doi:10.18280/ijsdp.170107

Effects of Travel Motivation on Image Destination: Najaf City as a Case Study

2022· article· en· W4221013768 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Zuhier Abbas Azeez

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHalal products and consumer behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTourismDestinationsDestination imageAdvertisingMarketingVariety (cybernetics)Tourist destinationsPsychologyBusinessGeographyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Travel motives are one of the most important subjects that has engaged academics since the 1960s in their quest to understand the reasons that lead tourists to decide to travel and how to pick tourist destinations. Knowing the travel motivations accurately leads to a clear understanding of the tourist's behaviour and the best tourist attractions, noting that the importance of such knowledge lies in the fact that it allows for meeting the needs and desires of the tourist that correspond to the travel motivations. The purpose of this study is to examine the reasons for travel and how travellers choose certain tourist sites from a variety of possibilities. Additionally, researchers are examining how to address the requirements and desires of tourists who have chosen this destination. The study used Najaf, Iraq, as a case study to analyse the reasons for visiting the city and how to instil a positive image of the place in the minds of people who come and return. The results of study confirmed the reality of the impact of the image of the destination on attracting tourist destinations and encouraging tourists to visit it. Finally, to achieve a favourable tourist image, the combination of the cognitive and emotional aspects of the destination image is an influential factor.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.253
Threshold uncertainty score0.382

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.294 · 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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Sustainable Development and PlanningSame topicHalal products and consumer behaviorFrench-language works237,207