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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to present a review essay of the scholarly work of Donald Dixon, focusing on six of his major contributions to marketing thought and theory. Design/methodology/approach The research relied heavily on previously published articles, personal interviews and databank searches. Findings A more complete timeline of the history of marketing thought is presented. The historical work done by Dixon shows us that marketing is not a recent field of human behavior but dates back millennia. His contributions have enriched the marketing discipline and have positioned marketing in its rightful place as a social science studying one aspect of human behavior, which is buying and selling. Practical implications Knowing more about the history of marketing is useful both to academics and to practitioners. One learn more about the practitioners and intellectual thinkers of the past who have laid the foundation of marketing as a social science. Originality/value The essay ofers but a succinct summary of Dixonian marketing thought with his many contributions to marketing scholarship and macromarketing thought over the past 50 years.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.024 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it