MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2083103907 · doi:10.1086/378620

The Moderating Effect of Product Knowledge on the Learning and Organization of Product Information

2003· article· en· W2083103907 on OpenAlexaff
Elizabeth Cowley, Andrew A. Mitchell

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Consumer Research · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDesign Education and Practice
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProduct (mathematics)Knowledge managementBusinessPsychologyComputer scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research examines how differences in the organization of brand information in memory between higher and lower knowledge consumers affects which brands are retrieved when consumers are provided with a usage situation. A spreading activation network model of memory is used to predict the results of an experiment where the usage situations were varied at encoding and repeated recall sessions. The results of the study indicate that lower knowledge consumers tend to learn only the brand information that is appropriate for a usage situation at encoding and do not organize brands by subcategory in memory. Consequently, lower knowledge consumers tend to retrieve the same set of brands regardless of the usage situation at retrieval. Alternatively, higher knowledge consumers learn brand information appropriate for different usage situations and organize this information by product subcategories. This allows higher knowledge consumers to retrieve the brands appropriate for the usage situation at retrieval, and to vary the set of retrieved brands as the usage situation changes.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.052
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.052
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.321 · 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 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

Citations228
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Consumer ResearchSame topicDesign Education and PracticeFrench-language works237,207