MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2069915265 · doi:10.1509/jmr.06.0005

Modeling Credit Card Share of Wallet: Solving the Incomplete Information Problem

2012· article· en· W2069915265 on OpenAlexaff
Yuxin Chen, Joel H. Steckel

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Marketing Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicConsumer Market Behavior and Pricing
Canadian institutionsKellogg's (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCredit cardTransaction dataProfitability indexComputer scienceDatabase transactionProduct (mathematics)Complete informationVendorFocus (optics)Value (mathematics)Process (computing)Database marketingMarketingDatabaseBusinessMicroeconomicsEconomicsWorld Wide WebPaymentRelationship marketingMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite the powerful technologies that have enabled the assembly of transactional databases and the processing of information about individual customers and their buying patterns, database marketers have been limited by what is known as the “incomplete information problem”—that is, marketers have incomplete information about a customer's behavior in the product category of interest. A company's transactional database can only be built from customers' transactions with that company. Any transactions that have been made with other companies are missing. The authors present a modeling approach designed to solve the incomplete information problem. They use transactions conducted with a single supplier in that category to infer consumers' behavior with other suppliers in that category. In particular, armed with prior knowledge of the parametric form of consumer interpurchase time distributions, they uncover elements of the stochastic process that dictates which supplier a consumer chooses on a particular purchase occasion. The authors focus on interpurchase times because they form the core of the incomplete information problem. If a company uses its observed interpurchase times to estimate interpurchase times in the category for a specific consumer, its estimate will be biased upward. Combined with the model developed in this study, a familiar analysis of transaction profitability can be used to build a new type of lifetime value: lifetime category value of the customer.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.082

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations35
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Marketing ResearchSame topicConsumer Market Behavior and PricingFrench-language works237,207