MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2126929010 · doi:10.5539/ijms.v6n2p145

Purchase Intention of Counterfeit Products: The Role of Subjective Norm

2014· article· en· W2126929010 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Santi Budiman, Tony Wijaya

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Marketing Studies · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicConsumer Behavior in Brand Consumption and Identification
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCounterfeitNorm (philosophy)Significant differencePsychologyAdvertisingSocial psychologyMarketingBusinessPolitical scienceMathematicsStatisticsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of the research is to test the purchase intention difference based on the subjective norm role and relationship of subjective norms. The research was done by testing the purchase intention difference when the subjective norm role was high and when the subjective norm was low. The sample in this research was the executive women that had knowledge about counterfeit bags. The respondents who were successful to be collected in the research were 86 executive women respondents in Yogyakarta-Indonesia. The data analysis in this research uses the difference testing helped by Analysis of Variance. The data analysis results show that there is the purchase intention difference based on the highness and the lowness of the subjective norm role of the consumers to use the counterfeit products. There are positive corellation between subjective norm and purchase intention. Consumers with the high subjective norm role have the low intention to buy and consumers with the low subjective norm role have the high intention to buy.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.254 · 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

Citations21
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Marketing StudiesSame topicConsumer Behavior in Brand Consumption and IdentificationFrench-language works237,207