Exploration on User Acceptance Behavior of Hotel Artificial Intelligence Technology Based on Experience Quality
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
People's requirements for quality of life have generally improved, and activities such as traveling and office work cannot avoid solving the accommodation problem in hotels. Customers pay more attention to hotel products and services, rather than just satisfying their usage needs. In order to improve their brand effect and charisma, hotels need to study the factors that affect customer satisfaction from the perspective of user acceptance behavior. This article mainly used survey methods and model design methods to analyze the acceptance behavior of hotel artificial intelligence (AI) technology users. According to survey data, 62% of people believed that the quality of hotel service was what makes customers satisfied. Through scientific and effective questionnaires, hotels can better understand customers' acceptance and satisfaction with experience quality, thereby formulating corresponding improvement measures and service strategies to improve customer satisfaction and loyalty.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it