MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2056485540 · doi:10.1108/02651330010331606

Product and process certification – Systems, regulations and international marketing strategies

2000· article· en· W2056485540 on OpenAlexaff
Ilan Vertinsky, Dongsheng Zhou

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Marketing Review · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicGlobal trade, sustainability, and social impact
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCertificationBusinessMarketingProduct (mathematics)UnobservableVariety (cybernetics)Production (economics)Process (computing)Industrial organizationEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Asymmetries in information, where sellers have more information than buyers about product qualities, may prevent firms from supplying some goods and services despite the fact that consumers are willing to pay adequately for them. The frequency and importance of such market failures is growing with the increase in buyers’ interest in unobservable qualities (attributes) of products, including the nature of their production processes. Certification by credible third parties may reduce the frequency and mitigate consequences of market failures. Certification creates a variety of challenges for both marketers and regulators. In this paper, we examine the emergence of alternative domestic and international regulatory regimes for certifying some qualities of products and services. We explore the implications of these regimes and country and product characteristics to the formulation of international marketing strategies. We illustrate our findings through a case study of the forest products industry.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.007
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations38
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Marketing ReviewSame topicGlobal trade, sustainability, and social impactFrench-language works237,207