The Adolescent Influence in Family Decision-Making: Parents Perception
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The family is an important institution on products purchasing in society. Reviewers of family decisions used to consider not only the husband-wife relationship but acknowledges the importance of adolescents in family purchasing decisions. The main purpose of this study is to understand how family members take purchase decisions as a group, by measuring the adolescent level of influence on the acquisition of several selected products. Furthermore, the study investigates if the adolescent level of influence differ depending on the stages of buying decision process, adolescent gender, and the amount of children in the family. The study was conducted in Curitiba city in Brazil and the respondents were family members (husband, wife and adolescent). A sample of 93 families, totaling therefore 279 consumers have been selected for the study. The results show that parents disagree about the intensity of influence from the teenage son from some products; that adolescent gender influences the level of his/her participation; and the amount of children in the family increases his/her level of participation. Furthermore, it’s proposed graphically a triangle of influence of family members, by stage of buying decision process and product researched.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".