MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2090562959 · doi:10.17722/ijrbt.v1i1.2

A Perceptual Study towards Emergence of Text Messaging as a Marketing Tool

2012· article· en· W2090562959 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Shaveta Gupta, Neha Kalra

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Research in Business and Technology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerceptionComputer scienceWorld Wide WebData scienceMarketingBusinessPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT-Text messaging, also known as "texting", refers to the exchange of brief written messages between mobile phones over cellular networks. The use of mobile phones has increased significantly over the period of time. Text messaging is gaining popularity as an advertising medium because it is relatively inexpensive and allows businesses to reach out to highly targeted consumers. Millions of people all over the world have the ability to receive text messages. In order to study the perception of people towards increasing use of mobile technology for advertising, the present study has been undertaken on 120 mobile users from the state of Punjab. The data has been analysed using descriptive statistics, Friedman’s two-way ANOVA, Chi-square and Factor analytic approach. The study revealed that the companies are making use of mobile technology at an increasing rate for advertising their products and the preferences of the customers are also widely changing in terms of source of purchase. Also the study revealed that respondents consider mobile advertising as informative though the negative aspects are there.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.194
GPT teacher head0.506
Teacher spread0.313 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Research in Business and TechnologySame topicTechnology Adoption and User BehaviourFrench-language works237,207