MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2244374366 · doi:10.2478/gfkmir-2014-0059

“Call. Mail. Shoot. Listen. Play” But What Functionalities Add Real Value in Convergent Products?

2010· article· en· W2244374366 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueGfK Marketing Intelligence Review · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDigital Marketing and Social Media
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProduct (mathematics)Computer scienceQuality (philosophy)PhoneConsumption (sociology)Value (mathematics)Perspective (graphical)The InternetCustomer baseBase (topology)AdvertisingBusinessMarketingWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract It is very common to add diverse new functionalities to existing base products (e.g., adding mobile television to a cell phone or internet access to a personal digital assistant). These convergent products offer users a broad choice of potential applications. However, it is not clear what additions are actually valued by consumers, and therefore also make sense from a manufacturer’s perspective. The current research addresses this very issue. It investigates the role of three factors on the evaluation of such convergent products (CPs); namely, (1) the consumption goal (utility versus fun-oriented) associated with the base product and the added functionality, (2) the prior ownership of the base product, and (3) the quality of the brand introducing the new functionality. In three experimental studies, the author explores the effect of each of the above three factors in the evaluation of CPs. On the basis of the results he presents some guidelines on how to extend existing products to create more value for consumers and manufacturers

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.940
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.280 · 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