Epistemic_Statements  

CORD-19:eabb51d9cc4d09b9bb231c404d4fe55aaddab881 JSONTXT 9 Projects

Annnotations TAB TSV DIC JSON TextAE-old TextAE

Id Subject Object Predicate Lexical cue
T1 313-428 Epistemic_statement denotes The part-worth values for the trip product elements are expected to depend on a number of traveler characteristics.
T2 429-552 Epistemic_statement denotes The predictors hypothesized are city travel experience, general modal preference, socio-economic status, and car ownership.
T3 2037-2164 Epistemic_statement denotes Finally, the limitations of this demonstration study that discourage extrapolation to city travelers in general are emphasized.
T4 2287-2420 Epistemic_statement denotes While many different ways may be conceived of how to tackle this issue, the authors decided to focus on the travelers' point of view.
T5 2421-2565 Epistemic_statement denotes If a raison d'être exists for air transport thenin the simple mind of a marketing scientistthe reason likely relates to the airlines' customers.
T6 2566-2698 Epistemic_statement denotes The problem was downsized to a workable version involving travelers ex Vienna on leisure or business trips to another European city.
T7 2699-2827 Epistemic_statement denotes From the consumer behavior point of view the 'importance' of air transport may be interpreted in terms of preference or utility.
T8 2828-3085 Epistemic_statement denotes Its value becomes apparent as a variation in the height of preference or the amount of perceived utilitythe 'part worth' in the terminology of classical conjoint analysisthe airplane seat contributes to the overall benefit attributed to a city trip package.
T9 3280-3431 Epistemic_statement denotes It may be analyzed on aggregate level by means of cross elasticities (Wardman, 1997) or by discrete choice micromodels (such as the multinomial logit).
T10 3830-4052 Epistemic_statement denotes A comprehensive review of choice models in tourism is provided by Crouch and Louviere (2001) ; among the 38 pieces of research itemized, however, there is none dealing with alternative modes of transport in a trip package.
T11 4176-4225 Epistemic_statement denotes The mode of transport, however, was not included.
T12 4226-4305 Epistemic_statement denotes In this study the mode of transport will be a prominent part of a trip package.
T13 4306-4445 Epistemic_statement denotes Its utility as perceived by the travelers then may be compared to those of the other trip components simultaneously present in the package.
T14 4771-4979 Epistemic_statement denotes One of the most popular sample applications of conjoint analysis for very complex mixtures of services also originates from hospitality research; it is the "Courtyard by Marriott" case outlined by Wind et al.
T15 5326-5378 Epistemic_statement denotes The link between tourism and transport is ambiguous.
T16 5695-5859 Epistemic_statement denotes Regardless of which interpretation one chooses to follow, the role of the mode of transport in the travelers' evaluation of a trip package seems largely unexplored.
T17 6017-6220 Epistemic_statement denotes However, these studies present their results in a usually narrative manner reporting about the frequencies of modes preferred without exploring the modes' contribution to the overall utility of the trip.
T18 6221-6411 Epistemic_statement denotes One of the rare exceptions employing an up-to-date model of mode choice in a tourism setting is Nerhagen (2003) 's recent analysis of the influence of previous experience on choice behavior.
T19 6743-6828 Epistemic_statement denotes The extended Bradley-Terry Model (EBTM) has not yet been applied in tourism research.
T20 7072-7132 Epistemic_statement denotes They indicate the likelihood of booking such a trip package.
T21 7592-7707 Epistemic_statement denotes The part-worth values for the trip product elements are expected to depend on a number of traveler characteristics.
T22 7708-7832 Epistemic_statement denotes The predictors hypothesized are: city travel experience, general modal preference, socio-economic status, and car ownership.
T23 7838-7971 Epistemic_statement denotes 1 condenses the underlying hypotheses into a starting model to guide the data collection and the subsequent steps of model selection.
T24 10065-10203 Epistemic_statement denotes Further processing was limited to those respondents with a complete set of covariate values and who differentiated at least five packages.
T25 10682-10928 Epistemic_statement denotes In fact, the EBTM is a model for paired comparison data, i.e., the aim is to obtain estimated overall rankings of objects (with locations on an interval scale), where each subject (or judge) makes one or more comparisons between pairs of objects.
T26 10929-11237 Epistemic_statement denotes This type of model can be applied to rating data as recorded in the current study by simply transforming the ratings of two trip packages, A and B say, into a paired comparison response which can be either 'A preferred', 'B preferred' or 'equal preference' depending on the rating value for the two packages.
T27 11238-11366 Epistemic_statement denotes Using such models may prove useful in overcoming problems arising from questionable metric properties of rating scale responses.
T28 11850-11951 Epistemic_statement denotes The Bradley-Terry Model may be fitted using ordinary methods for binomial logistic regression models.
T29 11952-12016 Epistemic_statement denotes Alternatively, the BT model can be fitted as a log-linear model.
T30 12017-12097 Epistemic_statement denotes Given J objects, J 2 distinct pairwise comparisons between objects are possible.
T31 12098-12438 Epistemic_statement denotes Let n ( jk) be the number of comparisons between object j and object k and let Y ( jk) j be the number of preferences for object j and Y ( jk) k the number of preferences for object k. The outcome of a paired comparison experiment can be regarded as a J 2 Â J incomplete twodimensional object pair × decision for object j contingency table.
T32 12885-13086 Epistemic_statement denotes Using a respecification for the π ( jk) j 's and standard notation for log-linear models for contingency tables the log-linear formulation of the basic BT model is given by the following two equations:
T33 13087-13331 Epistemic_statement denotes where μ ( jk) j = μ ( jk)k are nuisance parameters and may be interpreted as interaction parameters representing the objects involved in the respective comparisons, fixing therefore the corresponding marginal distribution, i.e., the n ( jk) 's.
T34 13332-13429 Epistemic_statement denotes The λ j O 's represent object parameters (O is used for objects) and are related to the π j 's by
T35 13430-13505 Epistemic_statement denotes So far, there is no advantage in using the log-linear over the logit model.
T36 13506-13572 Epistemic_statement denotes However, there are often situations where no decision can be made.
T37 13970-14141 Epistemic_statement denotes A major advantage of the log-linear formulation is the possibility to extend the basic BT model by incorporating parameters for subject (rater) and object characteristics.
T38 14404-14579 Epistemic_statement denotes Moreover, possible interaction effects might reflect .0000 aliased Amsterdam Train/2nd 4 4 ⁎ 258 different importance of object characteristics according to subject variables.
T39 16504-16659 Epistemic_statement denotes A common idea is to reparameterize the object parameters as a linear combination of P covariates X 1 ,…, X P , which represent P properties of the objects.
T40 16660-16783 Epistemic_statement denotes In order to incorporate object covariates the object-related parameters λ j O are replaced by the linear reparameterization
T41 16784-16920 Epistemic_statement denotes where the x jp 's denote the covariates describing the p-th property of the object j and the β p X 's are unknown regression parameters.
T42 17120-17366 Epistemic_statement denotes The EBTM is a multinomial log-linear model and thus a Generalized Linear Model (see, e.g., McCullagh and Nelder, 1999) and can be fitted using standard ML techniques with any software capable of computing log-linear models for contingency tables.
T43 17528-17662 Epistemic_statement denotes The part-worth utilities in conjoint terminology are related to the parameters of the object covariates (trip attributes) in the EBTM.
T44 17663-17776 Epistemic_statement denotes The parameters for the subject covariates show the influence of the traveler characteristics hypothesized in Fig.
T45 19716-19859 Epistemic_statement denotes The practical importance of these changes may be assessed by comparing them with the consequence of a price increase (P6) from 424 to 642 Euro.
T46 20447-20532 Epistemic_statement denotes A bus or a train ride (unless lowest priced) seem to lead to poor overall (Table 4 ).
T47 21322-21398 Epistemic_statement denotes In the log-linear variant of the EBTM the relationships hypothesized in Fig.
T48 21573-21712 Epistemic_statement denotes Recall, however, that a 'socio-economic status' variable was formed by combining the two observables 'level of education' and 'occupation'.
T49 21889-21979 Epistemic_statement denotes the likelihood-ratio tests) for the final model and a model without the respective effect.
T50 21980-22252 Epistemic_statement denotes The substantial number of significant subject covariates demonstrates that the travelers are fairly heterogeneous in their assessing of a trip package and that the traveler characteristics proposed are appropriate for capturing quite a lot of this interpersonal variation.
T51 23563-23691 Epistemic_statement denotes All part-worth utilities except 'hotel category' appear to be subject to the traveler's educational and occupational background.
T52 24857-25005 Epistemic_statement denotes Hence, for the leisure travelers too, the socio-economic status emerges as a high-priority segmentation criterion when targeting city trip packages.
T53 25407-25510 Epistemic_statement denotes Two of the hypothesized relationships remained unconfirmed (experience → price; car ownership → price).
T54 25511-25708 Epistemic_statement denotes Not expected beforehand, the leisure tourists as well as their business counterparts seem to make their evaluation of an urban destination dependent on a general preference for a mode of transport.
T55 26035-26180 Epistemic_statement denotes Moreover, both groups are internally heterogeneous regarding their assessments and a number of covariates seem to account for this heterogeneity.
T56 26181-26268 Epistemic_statement denotes Pondering on the empirical results one must not overlook the limitations of this study.
T57 26453-26613 Epistemic_statement denotes An equivalent survey sponsored by rail and bus for their passengers would be desirable to learn about the bias provoked by the respective consumption situation.
T58 26614-26796 Epistemic_statement denotes One may rightly expect such a bias as the general preference for a mode of transport turned out to influence the assessment of the trip components mode and price in both sub-samples.
T59 26895-26996 Epistemic_statement denotes The analysis follows a model selection scheme guided by an initial set of hypothesized relationships.
T60 27023-27170 Epistemic_statement denotes 5 and 7) result from a series of likelihood ratio tests gradually simplifying the model by removing nonsignificant (p N 0.05) subject effects (i.e.
T61 27282-27400 Epistemic_statement denotes The versions surviving the model selection process would have to be exposed to new data for being conclusively tested.
T62 27401-27500 Epistemic_statement denotes Working on the contingency tables the EBTM as all log-linear models requires a fairly large sample.
T63 27617-27704 Epistemic_statement denotes Despite of all these caveats there are a few lessons to learn for future hypothesizing.
T64 27705-27899 Epistemic_statement denotes With so much emphasis on the marketing of destinations the importance of the mode of transport may have been underrated until the market success of the low-cost carriers began to tell otherwise.
T65 28046-28096 Epistemic_statement denotes This seems natural for predetermined modal choice.
T66 28262-28411 Epistemic_statement denotes Finally, socio-economic status (for business and leisure) and age (for leisure only) should be among the candidates for market segmentation criteria.
T67 28412-28504 Epistemic_statement denotes These characteristics seem to act on the assessment of all components in the product bundle.
T68 28505-28662 Epistemic_statement denotes In terms of methodology the EBTM proved its ability of handling fairly complex systems of relationships involving rating data and many categorical variables.
T69 28921-29061 Epistemic_statement denotes At least ordinal information may hide behind these differences and may remain unexploited after the downgrading of the level of measurement.
T70 29329-29383 Epistemic_statement denotes But this is another story pointing to future research.