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 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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".