MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2079091459 · doi:10.2753/jec1086-4415140103

Profiling Retail Web Site Functionalities and Conversion Rates: A Cluster Analysis

2009· article· en· W2079091459 on OpenAlexaff
Anteneh Ayanso, Reena Yoogalingam

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Electronic Commerce · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicConsumer Market Behavior and Pricing
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompetitor analysisProfiling (computer programming)BusinessWeb analyticsE-commerceComputer scienceWeb siteCluster analysisWorld Wide WebWeb serviceWeb developmentMarketingThe InternetWeb intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A Web site's conversion rate (the proportion of visitors who complete a desired action) is an important competitive metric. Web retailers invest significant effort in managing functionalities that can attract and convert visitors. Retailers' decisions are often based on tradition or simply follow competitors' efforts. The absence of an informed decision-making process usually leads to significant overlap in marketing efforts and investment in functionalities. This paper uses the two-step clustering algorithm to profile Web retailers in terms of Web site functionalities and Web performance metrics using data on the top 500 U. S. Web retailers ranked by their 2006 annual sales. The study finds an essential set of functionalities and indicates the presence of complementarities among sets of functionalities associated with significantly different rates of conversion and monthly visitation. It also finds different profiles for Web-only retailers versus those that have traditional channels in addition to the Web. These results may be useful for retailers in their decisions on providing Web site functionalities and in managing their conversion rates and other related metrics.

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 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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.316
Threshold uncertainty score0.474

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.261
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations70
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Electronic CommerceSame topicConsumer Market Behavior and PricingFrench-language works237,207