MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2023150041 · doi:10.1080/20932685.2014.999009

Exploring first- versus third-person perceptions of product placement influence on consumption and fashion in India

2015· article· en· W2023150041 on OpenAlexaff
Michelle R. Nelson, Sameer Deshpande, Alexandra M. Vilela

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Global Fashion Marketing · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSouth Asian Cinema and Culture
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerceptionConsumption (sociology)Product (mathematics)PsychologySocial psychologyAdvertisingBusinessAestheticsArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research highlights the influence of globalization in Indian films (including product placement – PPL) and fashion, gauging perceived effects of PPL on self and others among Indian audiences. Although critics assume media effects, little is known about how audiences feel about the changes in the film industry, or the perceived influences of film on fashion and consumption imagery. Across two studies, we seek to fill those research gaps. Featuring 32 interviews, Study 1 revealed a relationship between fashion in film and in real life. Perceived effects of PPLs on self were found only among younger women; other respondents believed that others (“youngsters”) were affected more than they were, in line with third-person perception theory. In Study 2, a survey gauging 158 Indians' beliefs about perceived effects of PPL on self versus others showed that gender and attitude toward PPL influenced the nature of the perceived effects. Both studies indicate that gender drives the perceived influence of PPL on consumption.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.179 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Global Fashion MarketingSame topicSouth Asian Cinema and CultureFrench-language works237,207