MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2163528872 · doi:10.1287/isre.1060.0107

Research Note: The Influence of Recommendations and Consumer Reviews on Evaluations of Websites

2006· article· en· W2163528872 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueInformation Systems Research · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDigital Marketing and Social Media
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaCanada Research ChairsAmazon Catalyst
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Test (biology)Outcome (game theory)User-generated contentEmpirical researchCausal inferenceConsumer behaviourSocial commerceMarketingEmpirical evidenceSocial mediaAdvertisingBusinessComputer scienceWorld Wide WebEconomicsEconometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recommendations and consumer reviews are universally acknowledged as significant features of a business-to-consumer website. However, because of the well-documented obstacles to measuring the causal impact of these artifacts, there is still a lack of empirical evidence demonstrating their influence on two important outcome variables in the shopping context: perceived usefulness and social presence. To test the existence of a causal link between information technology (IT)-enabled support for the provision of recommendations and consumer reviews on the usefulness and social presence of the website, this study employs a novel approach to generate the experimental conditions by filtering the content of Amazon.com in real time. The results show that the provision of recommendations and consumer reviews increases both the usefulness and social presence of the website.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.027
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.781
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0270.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.154
GPT teacher head0.502
Teacher spread0.349 · 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