MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4239413550 · doi:10.1504/ijstm.2017.085472

Revisiting drivers of tourist satisfaction and loyalty: role of key moderators

2017· article· en· W4239413550 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mahshid Omid, Frank Pons, Michel Zins

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Services Technology and Management · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiverse Aspects of Tourism Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTourismSituational ethicsLoyaltyPsychologySample (material)Social psychologyAdvertisingMarketingBusinessGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper posits that using tourist characteristics as moderating variables has the potential to resolve conflicting results of previous tourism studies. To verify this hypothesis, the influence of tourist situational and demographic characteristics on overall satisfaction, intention to revisit and to recommend the destination and the associations between these constructs are examined. The statistical analysis of a sample of 951 tourists in the island of Montreal supports the proposed model. Among other results, it is found that the overall satisfaction level differs among different tourists, with female, older, less-educated, and less-experienced ones expressing higher satisfaction. Moreover, it is shown that the composition of overall satisfaction is significantly different among tourists with different gender, age, education, and experience. The results also indicate that older, less-educated, and less-experienced tourists are more likely to recommend the destination to their family and friends. Theoretical and managerial implications are provided.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.300 · 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Services Technology and ManagementSame topicDiverse Aspects of Tourism ResearchFrench-language works237,207