MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2065896408 · doi:10.1504/ijeb.2007.016472

Online shopping bots for electronic commerce: the comparison of functionality and performance

2007· article· en· W2065896408 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

VenueInternational Journal of Electronic Business · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCaching and Content Delivery
Canadian institutionsLakehead University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKey (lock)Product (mathematics)Consistency (knowledge bases)Computer scienceMeasure (data warehouse)E-commerceSoftwareWorld Wide WebAdvertisingBusinessDatabaseComputer securityArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Shopping bots are software applications assisting consumers with online comparison-shopping by presenting product prices from multiple e-tailers. We examined the output of nine comprehensive shopping bots through multiple searches for 40 books, 20 CDs, and 20 DVDs. The results produced by each bot were analysed to determine bot effectiveness based on accuracy, consistency, and repeatability of recommendations, using price as a key measure. It was concluded that no best shopping bot exists, most bots offer limited product information, and all often present inaccurate information about the actual product price or availability. Several recommendations for practitioners and researchers are presented.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.601
Threshold uncertainty score0.285

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.281 · 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