MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7117303449 · doi:10.1108/jsm-07-2025-0477

Research progress in service automation: a critical review of consumer behavior in tourism and hospitality

2025· article· en· W7117303449 on OpenAlexaff
Lena Jingen Liang, Hwansuk Chris Choi, Woojin Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Services Marketing · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI in Service Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphGuelph General HospitalUniversity of Prince Edward Island
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTourismConsumer behaviourConceptual frameworkHospitalityService (business)Context (archaeology)Service designHospitality industryThematic analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose This study aims to address the conceptual ambiguity and fragmented understanding of service automation consumer behaviors in the tourism and hospitality industry. It synthesizes existing definitions, categorizes research domains and identifies emerging themes to provide a comprehensive framework for understanding consumer behavior in service automation. Design/methodology/approach A systematic literature review was conducted on 70 peer-reviewed articles related to service automation in tourism and hospitality. The study used thematic analysis to identify conceptual patterns, developed concept maps to illustrate interrelationships among constructs and performed citation analysis to uncover methodological trends and research gaps. Findings This review identifies three foundational characteristics of service automation: technology dependence, system autonomy and service delivery. Three major research themes were extracted, including consumer acceptance, humanoid and anthropomorphic design features and the impacts of service automation. The analysis also highlights prevalent application areas and methodological approaches and points to underexplored research opportunities. Originality/value This study offers the first structured synthesis of service automation consumer behavior literature. By developing a comprehensive conceptual framework and visualizing key research interconnections, it advances scholarly understanding of consumer behavior in the context of automated services and sets a clear agenda for future research.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.093
Threshold uncertainty score0.398

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.370 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Services MarketingSame topicAI in Service InteractionsFrench-language works237,207