MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2111550932 · doi:10.1109/hicss.2005.522

Resource-Based Determinants of Online Channel Commitment and Performance

2005· article· en· W2111550932 on OpenAlexaff
John Hulland, Kersi D. Antia, Michael Wade

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChannel (broadcasting)Context (archaeology)Resource (disambiguation)BusinessConceptual modelConceptual frameworkKnowledge managementIndustrial organizationResource-based viewMarketingComputer scienceCompetitive advantageTelecommunicationsSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While some firms' entire business models revolve around online channels, others have made only limited commitments to online channel ventures. What accounts for this marked heterogeneity, and do firms reap the performance benefits of increased levels of commitment? Drawing on findings from the literature on innovation and insights from the resource-based view (RBV) of the firm, we propose an integrative conceptual framework that helps answer these questions. We ground our hypotheses in the context of retailers' online channel development efforts, and test our conceptual framework with data collected via a web-based survey of 550 retailers. We find evidence of significant positive returns to investments in online channels. Furthermore, we observe the divergent effects of different sets of capabilities on commitment and performance. Importantly, we find that even after controlling for commitment, firms' resources have a significant impact on the performance of the online channel.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
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 score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.113
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.261 · 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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTechnology Adoption and User BehaviourFrench-language works237,207