MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408242536 · doi:10.1108/bfj-12-2023-1066

Bridging the knowledge gap of memorable dining experience at Michelin-starred restaurants: insights from a new two-dimensional strategic matrix

2025· article· en· W4408242536 on OpenAlexaff
Ya-Yuan Chang, Ching‐Chan Cheng, Ming-Chun Tsai, Pei‐Zhen Xie

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Food Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicWine Industry and Tourism
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBridging (networking)MarketingBusinessMatrix (chemical analysis)AdvertisingKnowledge managementComputer scienceMaterials scienceComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose This study integrated the service gap of the PZB model, hidden importance and Taguchi’s quality engineering to develop a new two-dimensional strategic matrix, the Hidden Importance and Relative Quality Performance (HI-RQP) model. The HI-RQP model was then used to determine the managerial implications and improvement direction of memorable dining experience (MDE) attributes of Michelin-starred restaurants (MSRs). Design/methodology/approach This study collected 619 MDE questionnaires from customers of seven MSRs. Findings The results reveal that the HI-RQP model comprises four quadrants. Professional and high-quality service, carefully prepared dishes, restaurant style and customer-oriented service attitude are competitive advantages that should be maintained. Conversely, taste and freshness that exceed customers’ expectations and provide extra services to customers are MDE attributes that require urgent improvement. Originality/value Besides contributing practically to the enhancement of MDE in MSRs, the findings facilitate a more plausible identification of MDE attributes by integrating various theories into the HI-RQP model.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.646
Threshold uncertainty score0.725

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Food JournalSame topicWine Industry and TourismFrench-language works237,207