What is a professional service? A conceptual review and bi‐national investigation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although interest in the marketing of professional services has grown steadily, there is still confusion over which services should be considered professional. Perceptions are important for marketing practitioners because consumers are likely to respond differently to stimuli such as advertising or price promotions depending on how they perceive the occupation engaged in such activities, and they may also be more price sensitive when occupations are not regarded as professions. Understanding how consumers determine which occupations are “professions” should also help practitioners to effectively manage their occupations’ images. In addition, such an understanding should help researchers to judge whether results obtained with respect to one service should be expected to extend to other services, and to ensure that services picked for inclusion in future studies are truly those likely to be perceived as professional. This study uses a US and a Canadian sample to survey consumer perceptions of the professionalism of 42 services selected from the overall population of services. It also tests for the first time the validity of several propositions regarding professional services that have long been assumed to be true.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".