MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118078061 · doi:10.1509/jmkr.47.2.301

The Effects of Consumer Prior Knowledge and Processing Strategies on Judgments

2010· article· en· W2118078061 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 Marketing Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicConsumer Behavior in Brand Consumption and Identification
Canadian institutionsKellogg's (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAffect (linguistics)Construal level theoryProduct (mathematics)Information processingPsychologyCognitive psychologyProcessing fluencyPresentation (obstetrics)FluencyProduct categorySocial psychologyComputer scienceCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Four studies examine how consumers’ prior knowledge of a product category and the way they process product information affect evaluation. Consumers with extensive prior knowledge of a category evaluate the brand more favorably when the presentation of the product information prompts a sense of progress rather than facilitating a detailed assessment (Studies 1 and 2), as well as when the information presentation involves a high level of construal rather than a low level (Studies 3 and 4). Consumers with limited domain knowledge exhibit opposite outcomes. The subjective experience of processing fluency mediates these effects. The findings suggest that evaluations are more favorable when there is a fit between prior knowledge and message processing than when fit is absent.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.912
Threshold uncertainty score0.586

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.314 · 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