MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2050214917 · doi:10.5539/ijms.v5n6p151

Factors Affecting Mobile Phone Purchase in the Greater Accra Region of Ghana: A Binary Logit Model Approach

2013· article· en· W2050214917 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Raymond K. Dziwornu

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Marketing Studies · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicConsumer Market Behavior and Pricing
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersKwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology
KeywordsMobile phoneLogistic regressionBinary logit modelBusinessQuality (philosophy)PhoneAdvertisingLogitDescriptive statisticsMarketingStatisticSample (material)Computer scienceTelecommunicationsStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper investigated the factors affecting mobile phone purchase decision in the Greater Accra Region of Ghana, using a binary logit regression model approach. Through a multiple-stage random sampling technique, structured questionnaire was used to collect primary data from 200 mobile phone users in four districts in the study area. Results of the descriptive statistic show that Nokia and Samsung phones were the two main brands of phones used by majority of the respondents interviewed. In addition, of the 54 percent of respondents who expressed their intention to acquire new phones majority were male, between the ages of 21-30 years and has tertiary level of education. The result of the binary logit regression model revealed that advanced technology features such as internet browsing and durability or quality of mobile phone handsets are the two main factors that are likely to positively and significantly affect mobile phone purchase decision. It is therefore recommended that manufacturers and marketers of mobile phone handsets should produce and market more durable and high quality mobile phone handsets with modern technology features that are targeted at the educated youth.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.423

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations21
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Marketing StudiesSame topicConsumer Market Behavior and PricingFrench-language works237,207