Measuring the influence of customer-based store brand equity in the purchase intention
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
Store brands account for and important market share in the Spain and a further increase in expected in the next years due to the downturn. However, there is lack of research on store brand customer-based Brand Equity. This study attempts to propose an integrated model of Brand Equity in store or retailer brands, based on Aaker’s well-known conceptual model. We propose a consumer-based model, including the main sources or dimensions of Brand Equity and considering the intention to purchase as a consequence. Based on a sample of 362 consumers and 5 store brands, structural equation modeling is used to test research hypotheses. The results obtained reveal that store brand awareness, loyalty along with store brand perceived quality have a significant influence on consumers’ intention to purchase store brands. Our study suggests that marketers and marketing managers from retailing companies should carefully consider the Brand Equity components when designing their brand strategies, and develop marketing activities in order to enhance their brands’ awareness.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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