MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2077760101 · doi:10.1108/07363760410525696

Strategies for influencing parental decisions on food purchasing

2004· article· en· W2077760101 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 Consumer Marketing · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicConsumer Behavior in Brand Consumption and Identification
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPurchasingInterpersonal influencePsychologyInterpersonal communicationSocializationMarketingConsumer behaviourSocial influenceSocial psychologyFunction (biology)Developmental psychologyBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2002, Story et al. proposed an ecological model for understanding the individual and environmental factors that influence young consumers’ eating behaviors. The theoretical framework suggests that eating behavior is a function of four levels of influence: individual, interpersonal, environmental and societal. The objective of the study is to explore how these levels of influence may explain strategies used by ten-year-old children to influence parental decisions on food purchasing. A self-administered questionnaire was filled out by children. Gender differences were observed in terms of eating environment, social motivations to select foods and use of specific persuasive strategies. The results obtained contribute to our knowledge on interpersonal influences on children’s consumer behavior and on individual differences in consumer socialization. Practical implications are presented and recommendations for future research are made.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.857
Threshold uncertainty score0.647

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.280
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