THE IMPACT OF PERCEIVED MARKET ORIENTATION ON SELLER-BUYER RELATIONSHIPS
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several models focus on the nature of relationships between firms in business markets (e.g., Morgan and Hunt, 1994; Anderson and Narus, 1990; Anderson and Weitz, 1989; Dwyer, Schurr, and Oh, 1987). In a number of studies, the dyad—the unique physical and psychological relationship between two firms—is the key unit of analysis. Though scholars studying Relationship Marketing (RM) focus on relationships between dyadic partners, and seek to explain why relationships develop and the ingredients that are necessary to maintain them, Market Orientation (MO) scholars largely ignore the ‘perceptual’ factor that is important in building and maintaining relationships. In this paper we propose an alternative approach to viewing MO and ways it impacts relationships. We link our MO construct to key relationship elements: trust, relational norms, and commitment. We also introduce the notion of connectivity (CN)—a construct that follows directly from commitment. Our paper develops the CN construct by identifying its antecedents and structural components borrowed from transactions cost theory and the relationship marketing literature. As we describe in the paper, our model explains the linkage between MO (from the seller’s perspective), trust (TR), relational norms (RN), commitment (CO) and connectivity (CN).
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it