MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404363490 · doi:10.5539/ijms.v16n2p53

Impact of Multigenerational Interactions on Travel Experience and Well-being of Elderly Tourist Insight from the Tourism Industry

2024· article· en· W4404363490 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Marketing Studies · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHealth and Well-being Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTourismMarketingBusinessTourist industryEconomic geographyAdvertisingEconomicsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Prior research on elderly travel has mostly examined the travel goals, situations, and happiness of older individuals as distinct factors. However, there has been little investigation into the influence of multigenerational interactions on the journeys and well-being of elderly tourists. Recognizing the urgency and importance of this gap, this study explores the impact of interpersonal connections with younger generations on the travel experiences and well-being of older individuals. Extensive research involving elderly travelers reveals that their interactions with their adult children often occur exclusively during shared travel, encompassing the period before, during, and after the trip. The findings also indicate that the recognition of elderly travelers’ experiences by their adult offspring significantly influences the quality of these relationships, which in turn affects the well-being of the elderly. Therefore, conducting a thorough examination of how intergenerational interactions impact the travel experiences and happiness of older individuals enables the tourism industry to make necessary adjustments to its products and services. This approach not only enhances intergenerational connections but also contributes to the growth of the elderly tourist market and boosts the profitability of destinations.

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)0.001
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 score0.519
Threshold uncertainty score0.378

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.372 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Marketing StudiesSame topicHealth and Well-being StudiesFrench-language works237,207