The “G” in “Glamping”: Exploring the Key Factors Contributing to Canada and U.S. Glamper’s Satisfaction and Glampsite Rebooking Intentions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Glamping, a trendy outdoor hospitality product, has received minimal academic attention. The purpose of this thesis is to explore the key predictors of North American glampers’ satisfaction and rebooking intention. Meanwhile, the study reviewed and picked five constructs (physical environment, interaction, outcome, access, and enjoyment) and proposed an exploratory conceptual framework. An online panel survey was employed with 423 valid samples collected for a quantitative analysis. Results suggest that both the quality of the physical environment and accessibility predict glampers’ satisfaction. Furthermore, accommodation settings could influence the prediction effects of physical environment quality and the interaction quality. The study also conducted a cluster analysis based on two open-ended questions. Concept maps generated by Leximancer demonstrated a comprehensive picture of more contributors to glamping satisfaction and rebooking intention. Findings of the study provide theoretical implications for future glamping studies as well as managerial inspirations for glampsite owners.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".