Designing Marketplace Literacy Education in Resource-Constrained Contexts: Implications for Public Policy and Marketing
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
This article describes the findings of an immersive program of field research on consumers living in poverty in South India and the lessons learned from the development and operation of educational interventions designed to enhance the marketplace literacy of these consumers. Whereas extant research and practice have traditionally addressed two key factors that facilitate market participation for the poor—market access and financial resources—the current research focuses on a third critical and complementary factor—namely, marketplace literacy. The authors contend that to sustainably benefit from enhanced market access and resources, (1) people living in subsistence conditions need to develop tactical or procedural knowledge, or concrete “know-how,” regarding how to be an informed consumer or seller, and (2) this know-how must be grounded in conceptual/strategic knowledge, or “know-why” understanding, of marketplace exchanges. To that end, the educational program outlined begins by familiarizing participants with the purpose and logic of marketplaces and then transitions to the tangible aspects of how these marketplaces function. The article concludes with reflection on the implications for consumer policy, marketing research, and business practice.
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 | 0.014 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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