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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Researchers and Practitioners have been interested in the field of impulse buying for the past sixty years (Clover,1950; Stern, 1962; Rook, 1987; Peck and Childers, 2006; Chang et.al, 2011). The purpose of this paper is toprovide a detailed account of the impulse buying behavior by compiling the various research works literature inthe field of Retailing and Consumer Behavior. It gives a broad overview of the impulse buying construct and thevarious behavior related aspects. A wide range of journal databases and books were referred to review the worksof various researchers. The content analysis of the various research works led to the classification of literatureinto different factors influencing impulse buying and further development of research framework. The multipleaspects of the subject are categorized for future research works in the area of impulse buying with thesuggestions. The paper will be useful for marketing practitioners and researchers towards comprehensiveunderstanding of the consumer’s impulsiveness.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it