Usage and success factors of commercial recommendation agents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Since their inception, which took place more than two decades ago, product recommendation agents (RAs) still attract very few consumers. Notably, most of academic work in the field had an empirical quantitative structure. In addition, no research has developed a comprehensive model to explain the adoption and usage of commercial RAs. The purpose of this paper is to follow a qualitative approach to investigate the factors behind the adoption and usage of commercial RAs, explore the effect of user age, and deduce the success factors of these RAs. Design/methodology/approach This research followed a qualitative approach. Qualitative research aims to form an in‐depth understanding of human behavior. It is essential for building grounded theory and for proposing comprehensive models for future examination. As such, in four discussion groups, participants provided their input following the shopping trial for a product using a factual RA (MyProductAdvisor.com). Discussion groups were used because they outline an important aspect of qualitative research and because they are ideal for both the inception and development of products and services. Findings Underlying the major themes, the analysis first provides insight in consumers' RA use and the products consumers regard as adequate to be offered using a commercial RA. The analysis then delineates some important factors that can be considered by developers to enhance the usability and trustworthiness of commercial RAs. Further, the analysis suggested four higher‐order factors that can be considered the success factors of a commercial RA: users appear to require a commercial RA that is friendly, smart, trusted, and informational. The themes that emerged from participants in the youth and the older discussion groups were rather invariant. Originality/value This is one of the few qualitative studies that focused on commercial RAs. The commercial RA success factors and their determinants are summarized in the form of a general framework to guide future work. This qualitative work provides a cornerstone that is of importance to theory development in the field of intelligent RAs and assistive technology. The results have important implications for RAs' developers 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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.022 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".