MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2176933019 · doi:10.19030/jabr.v20i3.2218

Co-Branding Internationally: Everyone Wins?

2011· article· en· W2176933019 on OpenAlex
Linda C. Ueltschy, Michel Laroche

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Business Research (JABR) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDigital Marketing and Social Media
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEquity (law)Style (visual arts)Brand equitySpan (engineering)Political scienceAdvertisingBusinessMarketingLawEngineeringHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt; tab-stops: .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in right 6.0in;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">Co-branding is an increasingly popular technique used primarily in domestic markets to transfer the positive associations of the partner brands to a newly formed co-brand.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span>This exploratory study investigates the relative impact of the brand equity of the constituent brands on co-branding efforts internationally using a sample of 1,203 Philippine housewives.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span>Findings indicate the co-branding of two high-equity brands was mutually beneficial, but the co-branding of high-equity and low-equity brands can be potentially dangerous for the high equity partner.</span></span></p>

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.775
Threshold uncertainty score0.639

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.003
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.139
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.264 · 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