MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399018139 · doi:10.1002/jtr.2652

Exploring shopping tourism as an adjunct therapy to improve mental health: Evidence from <scp>PLS‐SEM</scp> and <scp>NCA</scp>

2024· article· en· W4399018139 on OpenAlexaff
Jing Xu, Stephanie W. Lee, H. S. Chris Choi, Shun‐mun Wong

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Tourism Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicConsumer Retail Behavior Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdjunctTourismMental healthAdvertisingBusinessPsychologyMarketingPsychotherapistGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract While previous tourism studies have examined mental health, additional research is necessary. Drawing on Rogers' theory of person‐centered therapy and self‐determination theory, this study explores shopping tourism as an adjunct therapy to improve mental health. 309 residents from Hong Kong who had shopping tourism experiences were surveyed. Partial Least Squares‐Structural Equation Modeling (PLS‐SEM) and Necessary Condition Analysis (NCA) were adopted. The results showed that shopping hedonism, consisting of memorable and fashion shopping, and tourism escapism had specific effects on tourists' self‐congruence and eventually enhanced mental health. While tourism escapism was shown through PLS‐SEM to be non‐significant in driving shopping tourists' self‐congruence, it proved to be a necessary condition of such self‐congruence in NCA. This study recommends that government agencies promote shopping tourism as a non‐conventional way of enhancing people's mental health. Destinations can also attract shopping tourists from the perspective of promoting their mental health.

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)0.006
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.229
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.179 · 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

Citations9
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Tourism ResearchSame topicConsumer Retail Behavior StudiesFrench-language works237,207