MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413769703 · doi:10.21863/ijhts/2025.18.3.008

Modelling Travel Patterns and Predicting Spatial Temporal Movement of Inbound Tourists to India - A Markov Chain Approach

2025· article· en· W4413769703 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
V. Rudra Naik, Arun Bhatia, Kamal Nain Singh, Aditi Sharma

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Systems · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHuman Mobility and Location-Based Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMarkov chainMovement (music)TourismEconomic geographyEconometricsBusinessMarketingGeographyEconomicsStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Demand for tourism must be predicted in order to optimise management, increase income, and making policies for attracting the tourist’s. Repeat visitation along with managing inbound tourism demand is at the core of a destination marketing strategy. Tourism demand modelling has gained popularity among researchers in the current decade because of its predictive and analytical prowess. The present study, while making use of secondary data on inbound tourism (Foreign Tourists Arrivals- FTAs) spanning more than four decades (i.e. 1981-82 to 2022-23), offers valuable insight for Destination Management Organisations (DMO) towards repeat visitation based on results from Markov Chain Analysis. The analysis reveals that the number of tourists from the USA, Australia, and Canada has consistently grown at a faster rate than in other countries. However, decade-wise results from the Markov Chain Analysis identified that visitors from the UK, USA, and Bangladesh emerged as the most loyal sources of tourists visiting India across each decade. Despite this loyalty, projections for FTAs indicate a declining trend from the UK, USA, France, and Canada for the selected period. The research findings emphasize the need for the government to develop competitive tourism marketing strategies for attracting tourists from developed countries.

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)0.002
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 score0.358
Threshold uncertainty score0.952

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Hospitality and Tourism SystemsSame topicHuman Mobility and Location-Based AnalysisFrench-language works237,207