Pengaruh Tangibel-Sensorial Experience, Staff Relational/Interactional Experience, Aesthetic Perception dan Location pada Customer Satisfaction Budget Hotel di Indonesia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
tangible-sensorial experience, staff relational/interactional experience, aesthetic perception dan location terhadap customer satisfaction dengan objek budget hotel di Indonesia. Jenis Penelitian yang digunakan adalah basic research yang menggunakan 4 variabel yaitu tangible-sensorial experience, staff relational/interactional experience, aesthetic perception dan location. \nSumber data yang digunakan adalah data premier yaitu dengan menyebarkan kuisioner. Sampel yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini sebanyak 105 kuisioner yang disebarkan di Surabaya. Teknik pengambilan sampel yang digunakan non-probability sampling dan data akan diolah dengan mengunakan bantuan SPSS 2013 For windows. \nHasil penelitian yang diperoleh menunjukan terdapat pengaruh yang signifikan antara tangible-sensorial experience, staff relational/interactional experience, aesthetic perception dan location terhadap customer satisfaction. \n
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.058 | 0.005 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".