MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1546848542 · doi:10.1002/cb.1526

Download or stream? Steal or buy? Developing a typology of today's music consumer

2015· article· en· W1546848542 on OpenAlexaff
Gary Sinclair, Todd J. Green

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Consumer Behaviour · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCopyright and Intellectual Property
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTypologyDownloadPopularityDigital audioIdentity (music)AdvertisingSociologyPsychographicPreferenceConsumption (sociology)MoralityMusic industryBusinessMarketingAestheticsPolitical scienceLawEconomicsMusic educationArtSocial scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper explores the impact that recent transformations in digital music technology (e.g. the increasing popularity of legal streaming platforms) have had on the consumer experience. Following 35 in‐depth qualitative interviews, we have identified four key segments of contemporary music consumers (steadfast pirates, ex‐downloaders, mixed tapes and the old schoolers [the disengaged]) based on a continuum of their preference for illegal music piracy. Examining key themes (e.g. morality, format, value and identity investment) to distinguish each segment, we contribute to a fragmented music piracy literature in particular through the identification of the “ex‐downloaders” and “mixed tape” segments. Previous literature has tended to frame music piracy in very simplistic terms, failing to acknowledge a large number of consumers who are conflicted about their actions and rationalise their piracy in complicated and inconsistent ways related to the broader industry and their own sense of identity as a music consumer. Additionally, the discussion of the ex‐downloader segment provides significant evidence that for a large number of consumers, a policy of participation, in the shape of providing superior alternatives for legal digital music consumption, can be much more beneficial in tackling the problem of piracy than previous strategies of policing and coercion. Managerial and future research implications are discussed. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.012
Scholarly communication0.0080.009
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.114
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.177 · 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

Citations50
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Consumer BehaviourSame topicCopyright and Intellectual PropertyFrench-language works237,207