MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1501992356

Arab spring and Jordanian consumers' animosity toward foreign products: What managers need to know

2012· article· en· W1501992356 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Saeb Farhan Al Ganideh, Mohammad Niamat Elahee

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Comparative International Management · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicConsumer Behavior in Brand Consumption and Identification
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDemocratizationPoliticsIndependence (probability theory)Spring (device)Proxy (statistics)XenophobiaMiddle EastPolitical scienceEconomyGeographyDemocracyEconomicsLawEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The recent democratization movement across the region of Middle-East and North-Africa, popularly known as the “Arab Spring”, is likely to have far reaching consequences for business, economic and political environments of the Arab countries. Focusing on Jordan as a proxy for the Arab region and Britain for the West, this paper examines how Jordanian people view British products. Since granting independence to Jordan in 1946, Britain has maintained close diplomatic, political, and trade relationship with its former colony. Based on empirical data, this paper analyzes how different segments within the Jordanian society perceive Britain and its products. The findings indicate that Jordanians do harbor animosity toward Britain and its products, which consequently, result in their unwillingness to purchase British products. The findings further indicate that such animosity is affected by geographical location, educational level, and the extent of xenophobia that people harbor. The paper concludes with a discussion of the managerial implications of the findings in the light of the Arab Spring and makes necessary recommendations for both practitioners and researchers.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.493
Threshold uncertainty score0.756

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.004
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Citations2
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Comparative International ManagementSame topicConsumer Behavior in Brand Consumption and IdentificationFrench-language works237,207