MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2142677252 · doi:10.5539/ijms.v7n5p76

Factors Affecting Ghanaian Consumers’ Purchasing Decision of Bottled Water

2015· article· en· W2142677252 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Fidelis Quansah, Abednego Feehi Okoe, Benjamin Baroson Angenu

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Marketing Studies · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicConsumer Packaging Perceptions and Trends
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBottled waterPurchasingMarketingBusinessQuality (philosophy)Extant taxonTest (biology)PerceptionPsychologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of the study was to examine the factors influencing consumers’ choice of bottled drinking water. The survey research design was employed. Questionnaire was used as the data collections instrument. The items measuring the constructs were adapted from the extant literature. A sample size of two hundred and forty (240) bottled water consumers answered the questionnaire. Data was analysed using ANOVA and correlation test. The Statistical Package for Social Sciences Software was used to analyse the data. The results show that there is a relationship between age categories, income groups, educational levels and bottled water buying behaviour in the Ghanaian market. Again, the study found a relationship between perception and beliefs of bottled water usage. Furthermore, quality, brand price, availability and package were found to influence consumers’ choice of bottled water. Recommendations have been provided at the end of the study. Studies of this nature are very rare in Ghana making this study novel.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Citations31
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Marketing StudiesSame topicConsumer Packaging Perceptions and TrendsFrench-language works237,207