Life‐style orientation of rural US and Canadian consumers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose In view of the existing void in the current international and cross‐national/cultural marketing literature, the purpose of this paper is to look into the similarities and differences of life‐style orientations prevalent among US and Canadian consumers. The AIO (Activities, Interest, and Opinions) and VALS (Values, Attitudes, and Life‐Styles) statements adapted from the current cross‐cultural marketing literature were utilized to determine different US and Canadian consumer market segments. The research tools and techniques used in this study help retail businesses as well as manufacturing companies of the two countries to develop and execute more effective target marketing strategies. Design/methodology/approach The data for this study were collected through self‐administered questionnaires. The questionnaires were administered in two different locations. First, in Brandon, Canada and second, in the rural part of south central Pennsylvania (York and Lancaster counties). Both regions are similar to each other, each having a flourishing agricultural industry and a significant number of companies in the service and manufacturing industries. The data were collected through a drop‐off and pick‐up method among a sample of 300 Canadian married or common‐law families and 400 in the USA. Findings The study results show that there are, indeed, differences among the consumers’ life‐styles in the two countries which were similar in demographics and as such may have been previously treated the same way by marketers, but in reality have very different lifestyles. Based on the survey findings, managerial and/or public policy implications are offered for orderly marketing decision‐making purposes. Research limitations/implications A study of total urban consumers may produce different life‐style profiles than the ones presented here. This study only examined North American consumer life‐styles within the framework of product group (form). Additional studies may look at consumer life‐styles by use of product brands and even product options. Originality/value This empirical research study presents cross‐cultural comparisons of life‐styles, value orientations of consumers in the purchase of a variety of goods and services in the similar environments of North America, namely rural areas of the USA and Canada.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".