MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402528923 · doi:10.1080/14927713.2024.2399603

Understanding the influence of meaningfulness on memorable tourism experience (MTE) to invoke revisit intention in tourists with moderating effect of the perceived risk of COVID-19

2024· article· en· W4402528923 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Abhijeet Vikramaditya Tiwari, Naval Bajpai, Prasant Kumar Pandey

Bibliographic record

VenueLeisure/Loisir · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiverse Aspects of Tourism Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTourismCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)PsychologyRisk perceptionSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)2019-20 coronavirus outbreakSocial psychologyMarketingBusinessAdvertisingMedicineHistoryPerceptionDiseaseInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aims to explore meaningfulness and examine its impact on memorable tourism experience (MTE) and the subsequent effect on the revisit intention. The study also investigates the moderating effect of the perceived risk of COVID-19 on the relationship between MTE and revisit intention. The data were collected from tourists travelling to central India destinations through a survey. Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) was used to analyze the collected data of 549 tourists. It is also found that MTE directly and positively influences revisit intention in tourists. The result also shows that meaningfulness indirectly affects revisit intention of tourists when the relationship is mediated via MTE. Perceived risk of COVID-19 negatively moderates the relationship between MTE and revisit intention. All these results help destination managers and tourism practitioners make more informed decisions to improve the experience of tourists further and make travel destinations more sustainable.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.237
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLeisure/LoisirSame topicDiverse Aspects of Tourism ResearchFrench-language works237,207