Influence of Shopping Orientation and Store Image on Patronage of Furniture Store
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Knowledge on furniture consumers’ retail patronage will promote and enhance efforts to increase sales atfurniture stores and could guide future research. This research therefore was proposed to develop a generalmodel of retail patronage and to empirically test the relationships proposed in the model in the context offurniture market. The objectives of the study include 1) is to review existing retail patronage models and relatedliterature 2) to develop a general framework of retail patronage behavior and 3) to test the model in the furniturestore shopping patterns. Based on a review of the literature the study proposed to adapt Darden’s patronagemodel of consumer behavior. 115 data were collected through survey questionnaires and the underlyingrelationship among the variables that characterize consumers’ patronage behavior towards furniture was studied.Statistically it was found that in terms of shopping orientation, the apathetic shopper and the personalizingshopper was influenced by the lifestyle of the consumer and hence influenced the customer patronage. Storeimage on the other hand was found to enhance the impact on consumer patronage of the furniture store andmoreover acted as both the predictor and the moderator.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
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.
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".