MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1966413469 · doi:10.5539/ibr.v6n2p20

Consumer Perceived Value of International Networked Services: An Exploratory Study of the Case of Airline Alliance

2012· article· en· W1966413469 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Vikrant Janawade

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Business Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicAviation Industry Analysis and Trends
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAllianceBusinessExploratory researchValue (mathematics)MarketingAdvertisingIndustrial organizationComputer scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For the past few decades airline alliance has been a talk among the airline industry researchers and practitioners alike. Airline alliances have revolutionalised airline industry and are largely seen as a group of cherry picked culturally diverse international airlines, with an aim to reduce their operating costs and increase their market shares in regions where they can’t freely operate. The significance of multi-lateral airline alliances and the benefits derived by the members that forge an alliance have regularly featured in strategic alliance literature. Researchers have shed light on the strategic alliance’s operations, their revenue management and human resource management. However, with respect to marketing strategies of an airline alliance, to date, researchers have not addressed consumer perceptions of value gained by using the services offered by a multi-lateral airline alliance. Therefore, this paper aims to understand the attributes of consumer perceived value of an airline alliance and the services which influence consumers to form attributes of consumer’s perceived value of an airline alliance.

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)0.005
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.137
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.227 · 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

Citations15
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Business ResearchSame topicAviation Industry Analysis and TrendsFrench-language works237,207