MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2134051640 · doi:10.5267/j.msl.2013.03.001

Developing a conceptual model for selecting and evaluating online markets

2013· article· en· W2134051640 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sadegh Feizollahi, Alireza Shirmohammadi, Rohallah Hassani

Bibliographic record

VenueManagement Science Letters · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceConceptual modelProcess managementKnowledge managementBusinessDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There are many evidences, which emphasis on the benefits of using new technologies of information and communication in international business and many believe that E-Commerce can help satisfy customer explicit and implicit requirements. Internet shopping is a concept developed after the introduction of electronic commerce. Information technology (IT) and its applications, specifically in the realm of the internet and e-mail promoted the development of e-commerce in terms of advertising, motivating and information. However, with the development of new technologies, credit and financial exchange on the internet websites were constructed so to facilitate e-commerce. The proposed study sends a total of 200 questionnaires to the target group (teachers - students - professionals - managers of commercial web sites) and it manages to collect 130 questionnaires for final evaluation. Cronbach's alpha test is used for measuring reliability and to evaluate the validity of measurement instruments (questionnaires), and to assure construct validity, confirmatory factor analysis is employed. In addition, in order to analyze the research questions based on the path analysis method and to determine markets selection models, a regular technique is implemented. In the present study, after examining different aspects of e-commerce, we provide a conceptual model for selecting and evaluating online marketing in Iran. These findings provide a consistent, targeted and holistic framework for the development of the Internet market in the country.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.008
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.221
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations2
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueManagement Science LettersSame topicTechnology Adoption and User BehaviourFrench-language works237,207