Exploring the Disconnect Between Sustainability Practices and Customer Experience Evaluation at Hotel Le Saint-Sulpice Montreal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis examined the gap between sustainability initiatives publicly promoted by Hotel Le Saint-Sulpice and the degree to which guests were called in evaluating those initiatives. Commissioned to support the hotel’s strategic development, the study aims to explore the extent to which Hotel Le Saint-Sulpice engages its guest through feedback mechanisms. The purpose is to demonstrate the significant gaps in guest-questioning practices, more specifically related to sustainability initiatives. It will show how the lack of guest-feedback mechanisms concerning sustainability prevents them from better understanding their guests. The development task focussed on assessing the hotel’s current feedback mechanisms and compared them with those of similar boutique competitors in Montréal. The theoretical framework covered the topics of guest feedback mechanisms, customer experience, and sustainable hospitality. Methodologically, the study combined qualitative survey analysis with the help of a qualitative benchmarking analysis as well. The findings revealed a large disconnect. Although sustainability is positioned as a core brand value and the commissioner hotel has implemented meaningful environmental improvements, guest engagement around these initiatives remained minimal. Competitor analysis showed a similar pattern across the local market, and it shed light on a broader industry gap rather than an isolated case. The absence of sustainability-focused guest feedback processes has limited the hotel’s ability to assess the impact of its initiatives on satisfaction, loyalty, and perceived value. The analysis concludes that Hotel Le Saint-Sulpice would benefit from integrating targeted sustainability questions into its feedback tools, fostering two-way communication, and using guest insights to refine and prioritize future initiatives. Recommendations include formalizing sustainability-specific survey items, training staff to communicate these initiatives more interactively, and leveraging guest input as a strategic differentiator within Montréal’s boutique hotel sector.
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 | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".