MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388575535 · doi:10.18280/ijdne.180529

Perceptions of Marine Tourism in Lampung Bay's Small Islands: A Comparative Study

2023· article· en· W4388575535 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sugeng P. Harianto, Machya Kartika Tsani, Refi Arioen, Tomy Pratama Zuhelmi, Surnayanti

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCruise Tourism Development and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDirektorat Jenderal Pendidikan TinggiKementerian Pendidikan, Kebudayaan, Riset, dan Teknologi
KeywordsTourismVisitor patternAccommodationPerceptionGeographyBaySituatedMarketingBusinessPsychologyComputer scienceArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pasaran and Permata Islands, situated within the Lampung Bay cluster, offer unique tourist experiences yet have not succeeded in attracting substantial visitor interest.This study aims to analyze perceptions of marine tourism on these small islands located in Bandar Lampung City, Lampung Province, Indonesia.A total of 228 respondents, visiting Pasaran and Permata Islands, participated in the study.The adopted analytical method was Exploratory Factor Analysis, supplemented by f-tests and t-tests.The analysis of 23 tourism perception attributes yielded five distinct factors: tourist access, supporting facilities, natural resources, cleanliness, and additional supporting factors.Notably, the perceptions of the two islands differed significantly, attributable to variations in attractions, facilities, accommodation, and access.This divergence manifested in tourists' perceptions analyzed by gender, age, and income.The insights suggest that both islands require enhancements in specific areas.Pasaran Island necessitates advancements in 'supporting factors', while 'tourist access' is an area for improvement on Permata Island.The findings contribute to the understanding of marine tourism perceptions and provide actionable suggestions for enhancing the tourist experience on these islands.

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 score0.241
Threshold uncertainty score0.282

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.295 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Design & Nature and EcodynamicsSame topicCruise Tourism Development and ManagementFrench-language works237,207