MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2022634288 · doi:10.1080/0267257x.2014.955044

The experience of risk in families: conceptualisations and implications for transformative consumer research

2014· article· en· W2022634288 on OpenAlexaff
Simone Pettigrew, Laurel Anderson, Wendy Attaya Boland, Valérie-Inès de La Ville, Ilaisaane M.E. Fifita, Marie-Hélène Fosse-Gomez, Marie Kindt, Laura Luukkanen, Ingrid M. Martin, Lucie K. Ozanne, Dante Pirouz, Andrea Prothero, Tony Stovall

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Marketing Management · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransformative learningSociologyPsychologyConsumer researchBusinessDevelopmental psychologyMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Families represent an important context for understanding and addressing the various forms of risk experienced by consumers. This article defines and discusses the concept of risk as it applies to the familial unit, with a particular focus on the liminal transitions that occur within families and the resiliency required for families to identify and adopt effective coping strategies to manage these transitions. A framework is proposed that offers researchers an approach for applying concepts related to family risk to various consumption-related problems and issues. This framework constitutes a starting point that can be developed and expanded to facilitate a deeper understanding of the internal and external forces that influence families and their well-being, and the role consumption plays therein. Potential avenues for future transformative consumer research are proposed in this important but under-developed field.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.074

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0060.036
Scholarly communication0.0090.013
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.344 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations27
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Marketing ManagementSame topicPsychological Well-being and Life SatisfactionFrench-language works237,207