Em busca de uma agenda brasileira de pesquisa em estratégia de marketing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Há duas questões históricas no Marketing ainda não resolvidas: o seu poder nas estratégias das grandes empresas e a relevância da disciplina. Essas questões ganharam destaque no contexto da globalização, especialmente em países tidos como menos desenvolvidos, devido à ampliação de assimetrias no mercado e na academia. O artigo sugere que o poder reduzido do marketing na grande empresa era questão central em pesquisa no âmbito de estratégia de marketing nos anos 1980 e que o conceito de orientação para o mercado enfraqueceu o interesse por esse âmbito a partir dos anos 1990. O autor argumenta que a superação desse problema requer não somente a aversão à academia dominante, mas também a compreensão de interesses e mecanismos sócio-históricos que moldam a área nos Estados Unidos. Ao final, discute-se por que desenvolver uma agenda brasileira de pesquisa em estratégia de marketing e sugere-se um guia para a constituição dessa agenda.
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 | 0.022 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".