MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2053474867 · doi:10.1002/dir.20055

Pleasure or utility? Time planning style and Web usage behaviors

2006· article· en· W2053474867 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Interactive Marketing · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDigital Marketing and Social Media
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPersonalizationStyle (visual arts)PleasureEntertainmentAdvertisingExploratory researchRelation (database)MarketingEmpirical researchMarket segmentationPsychologyComputer scienceBusinessWorld Wide WebSociologyDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present research focuses on time planning style, an individual's habitual approach to time management, in relation to the use of the Web. We theorize and provide empirical evidence that highly analytic versus spontaneous planners are more likely to seek utilitarian rather than hedonic benefits from Web use. This pattern is associated with downstream relationships between the types of benefits sought and various Web usage behaviors (e.g., exploratory, entertainment, information search, and electronic shopping). A notable finding is that both planning styles are positively associated with electronic shopping, but due to different types of benefits that are sought. Implications are discussed for marketers’ customization of Web page content based on segmenting the possible audience on time planning styles.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.256
Threshold uncertainty score0.933

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.008
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.295 · 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