MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2021084883 · doi:10.1509/jmkg.66.3.33.18500

How Firms Relate to Their Markets: An Empirical Examination of Contemporary Marketing Practices

2002· article· en· W2021084883 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Marketing · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCustomer Service Quality and Loyalty
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransactional leadershipBusinessMarketingSample (material)Service (business)Goods and servicesTransactional analysisBusiness-to-businessBusiness marketingMarketing managementEconomicsMarket economyManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The authors examine 308 firms in the United States and four other Western countries to understand how different types of firms relate to their markets. Comparative analysis shows that though there is some support for consumer and goods firms being more transactional and business and service firms being more relational, there are many exceptions. The results also show that firms can be grouped into those whose marketing practices are predominantly transactional, predominantly relational, or a transactional/relational hybrid. Each group constitutes approximately one-third of the sample and includes all types of firms (consumer goods, consumer services, business-to-business goods, and business-to-business services). This suggests that marketing practices are pluralistic and managerial practice has not shifted from transactional to relational approaches per se.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.542
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.004
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.216 · 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