When the Lights Went Out: Hotel Managers' Perceptions of the Blackout of '03
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When power failed late in the afternoon of August 14, 2003, hotels in the northeastern United States and southern Canada were left without electricity for as long as two days. To assess the lodging industry's response to the event, a study of hoteliers was conducted by surveying selected participants in the Smith Travel Research database. Of the 147 respondents, 93 were from hotels that lost power and 54 were from hotels that retained power during the blackout. On average, the blackout lasted 16 hours for the responding hotels- meaning that guests at half the hotels being studied spent an entire night without electricity. Many managers considered the Blackout of '03 to be an aberrant event. Nevertheless, hotel managers should review their emergency plans and stockpiles of emergency supplies. The relatively high incidence of facilities failures and process problems calls into question managers' perceptions of the service quality provided during the blackout. Whether guests' perceptions match those of managers is a critical open question and one that deserves future research-ideally, before the lights go out again.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".