MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1533116724

Perceived influence of risk relievers in car purchase

2014· article· en· W1533116724 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
T. Sunitha, Mr. Viswanadhuni Ramesh

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicLeadership, Behavior, and Decision-Making Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDatabase transactionRisk perceptionQuarter (Canadian coin)BusinessConsumer behaviourMarketingAdvertisingPsychologyComputer sciencePerceptionGeography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This availability of multiple brands and many models increases the choice available to the consumer but also makes the decision process more complex and adds up to the perceived risk in the buying process of the car. Perceived risk represents consumer uncertainty about loss or gain in a particular transaction. Perceived risk represents consumer uncertainty about loss or gain in a particular transaction. 200 respondents were considered for the study carried out in Cuddalore district, India in last quarter of 2013. The study takes into account seventeen risk relievers that were identified as appropriate in purchase of cars. Among these relievers the impact of the most influencing relievers on first and next time purchasers and the influence of brand were studied. Implications were drawn based on the above study Further research can be carried out on a pan India basis and by adding to the existing seventeen risk relievers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLeadership, Behavior, and Decision-Making StudiesFrench-language works237,207