MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2114016585 · doi:10.1177/1094670505276629

Transactions vs. Relationships: What Should the Company Emphasize?

2005· article· en· W2114016585 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Service Research · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCustomer Service Quality and Loyalty
Canadian institutionsAthabasca University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransactional leadershipMarketingRelationship marketingRelevance (law)BusinessTransactional analysisMarketing managementKnowledge managementComputer scienceEconomicsPsychologyManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The relevance of transactional and relational marketing variables in relational exchanges is now well established in the marketing literature. However, the knowledge about their relative effectiveness and their optimal mix over time remains very sparse. An analytical model is proposed to help determine optimal decision rules for transactional and relational marketing efforts. Some of the main results are as follows: (a) If the seller benefits from the interaction between the transactional marketing effort and buyer’s commitment, then the seller’s optimal decision rules change over time and depend on the level of the partners’commitment. (b) Otherwise, the seller’s optimal decision rules for the two types of marketing are constant over time. (c) The seller should allocate more resources to relational marketing at the beginning of a relational exchange and, later on, should allocate more resources to transactional marketing.

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 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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.708
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.005
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.254
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.137 · 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