MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2114219022

Oops! Many Marketing Models are Wrong

2012· article· en· W2114219022 on OpenAlexaff
Olivier Mesly

Bibliographic record

VenueDialnet (Universidad de la Rioja) · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCustomer Service Quality and Loyalty
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec en Outaouais
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMarketingComputer scienceBusiness
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Muchos modelos de ¿marketing¿ que se encuentran en revistas científicas contienen errores de modelado. Este fenómeno ha sido observado desde hace más de treinta años, pero poco se ha hecho para corregir la situación. A fin de evitar señalar autores particulares, se discutirá un ejemplo que se encuentra en los periódicos. Formas apropiadas de los modelos son meticulosamente explicadas y se proporcionan ejemplos de enfoques adecuados de unos autores de ¿marketing¿. El objetivo de este trabajo, no es despectivo sobre la literatura del ¿marketing, más bien es un esfuerzo por rectificar la forma en que la experimentación se hace y se explica.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.045
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.990
Threshold uncertainty score0.075

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.045
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.006
Scholarly communication0.0090.020
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.009

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.216 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainEvaluation
GenreCommentary

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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDialnet (Universidad de la Rioja)Same topicCustomer Service Quality and LoyaltyFrench-language works237,207