MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2036145274 · doi:10.5539/ijps.v7n1p32

Eye Tracking in Neuromarketing: A Research Agenda for Marketing Studies

2015· article· en· W2036145274 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Psychological Studies · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicConsumer Retail Behavior Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeuromarketingMainstreamMarketingEye trackingMarketing researchTracking (education)PsychologyProduct (mathematics)Marketing managementBusinessAdvertisingComputer sciencePolitical scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article investigates the potential use of Eye Tracking as a neuromarketing tool and its potential for marketing in general. We sought to identify some of the main applications within the mainstream of marketing. The objective of this research was achieved by means of a conceptual literature review. The results of our research indicate important potential uses for Eye Tracking in practical marketing applications, such as brand equity, segmentation, new product development, pricing decisions, place decisions, promotion decisions, and social marketing studies. It is believed that in the near future, neuromarketing tools such as Eye Tracking will be part of mainstream marketing studies.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.097
Threshold uncertainty score0.984

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.568
GPT teacher head0.560
Teacher spread0.008 · 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