Les limites du discours économique sur la publicité
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is often assumed that the negative impact of advertising is the basis from which economic studies in this area are to be undertaken. The authors state that the evidence supporting such a claim is far from obvious. In fact, the suggestion brought forth is that this assumption may be faulty. Specific areas of inquiry are suggested such as the cost of advertising in relation to marketing and manufacturing costs as well as the impact of advertising on GNP. The authors point out that from a demand analysis perspective, the eternal diseconomies in consumption due to advertising as claimed and condemned by economists, is really the result of the consumer's decision making process in the market place. The economists fail to take into account all of the social and psychological forces which impact on consumer behavior. Finally, the authors state that from a supply analysis orientation, no conclusion link has been found between advertising, industrial concentration and market power.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.084 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.006 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".