An exploratory study on the cues that signal value to members in retail co‐operatives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Examines the concept of perceived value with data collected from 1,323 members in four retail co‐operatives. A set of six factors was found to have effect on members’ perceptions of the value of products and services they received from their retail co‐ops. In descending order of importance these factors are: the co‐operative form of organisation, contact personnel, in‐store specials, responsiveness, communication policy, and price comparisons. Price comparisons with the products/services offered by competing retail stores were found to have a negative impact on the members’ assessments of value. Moreover, when comparing value judgements on the basis of the variables, education and number of years the respondents had been with the co‐op, the results showed that the more educated the members were, the more likely they were to give feedback to the organisation. In addition, members that had been with the co‐op for one to three years were more apt to believe that management would respond to their suggestions than the respondents who had been with the co‐op for more than nine years. Implications for strategies that promise to create value and influence the members’ retention decisions are discussed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".