Beyond surveys: leveraging automated text analysis of travellers’ online reviews to enhance service quality and willingness to recommend
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
Airports are essential to the global economy, providing significant revenue and driving regional growth. In order to remain competitive and achieve sustainable development, airports must continuously monitor and improve service quality. To this end, understanding traveller perceptions of their experiences is important. While traditional survey-based methods are beneficial, managers are increasingly looking for alternative ways of collecting feedback, such as online reviews. Automated text analysis provides a cost- and time-effective technique with which to analyse large datasets of unsolicited online reviews, providing managers with strategic insights to enhance service quality. This study explores the potential of supplementing traditional airport service quality monitoring methods with automated text analyses to better understand traveller feedback and improve service quality. The results provide new methods to measure airport service quality, offering a fresh perspective on customers’ satisfaction with service quality experiences, and highlighting key strategic implications that can help organisations gain a competitive advantage.
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 | 0.022 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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