MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2275678723 · doi:10.2501/ijmr-2016-007

Experiential Motivations of Socially Responsible Consumption

2016· article· en· W2275678723 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

VenueInternational Journal of Market Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicEnvironmental Sustainability in Business
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à MontréalUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExperiential learningValue (mathematics)PerceptionConsumption (sociology)MarketingPsychologySocial responsibilitySocial psychologyBusinessPublic relationsSociologyPolitical scienceSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper uses the experiential marketing concept to explain some of the motivations for socially responsible consumption. It is argued that practising responsible behaviour helps consumers to perceive five different types of experiential value: emotional, cognitive, sensory, relational and behavioural. A web-based survey on a panel of more than 1,000 North American respondents confirmed the presence of an average level of each experiential value type in responsible decisions. We also found evidence for gender and age differences in the perception of those experiential benefits. This study provides guidelines to better promote socially responsible consumption through enriching consumers' experiential motivations. The findings of this study also provide ideas for demographic-based targeting of responsible goods/services.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.142
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.304 · 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