MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2296909285 · doi:10.19030/iber.v4i5.3593

Consumer Purchase Motives And Product Perceptions: A Hard Laddering Study Of Smoking Habits Of Poles

2011· article· en· W2296909285 on OpenAlexaff
Eugène Kaciak, Carman W. Cullen

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Business & Economics Research Journal (IBER) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCognitive and psychological constructs research
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLadderingPerceptionPsychologyProduct (mathematics)AdvertisingConsumer behaviourSample (material)Market segmentationMarketingSocial psychologyPencil (optics)BusinessMathematicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of the study is to apply the Means-End Theory to the analysis of smoking habits of Poles, based on a quota sample of 418 smokers in Krakow. The Means-End Theory posits that consumers learn to associate attributes (A) of products with particular consequences (C), and that these consequences are important because they accord with personal values (V) held by the individual. Each chain of associations A-->C-->V depicts the consumers personal motivations with respect to a given product. The paper-and-pencil assisted approach (which is called hard laddering, as opposed to soft, conventional tape-recorded interviews) is used to uncover links between personal values and the smokers choices. The results are then transposed into a meaningful market segmentation strategy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.246
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.182 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Business & Economics Research Journal (IBER)Same topicCognitive and psychological constructs researchFrench-language works237,207