MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2315963092 · doi:10.5539/ijms.v8n2p1

Smart Shoppers’ Purchasing Experiences: Functions of Product Type, Gender, and Generation

2016· article· en· W2315963092 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Marketing Studies · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicConsumer Retail Behavior Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPurchasingProduct (mathematics)MarketingBusinessAdvertisingProduct typeTRIPS architectureGeneration yComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p class="StyleBodytextSS11pt">Today’s consumers want to feel smart while shopping by minimizing the costs associated with shopping trips (e.g., time, effort, or money) and maximizing the benefits (e.g., convenience, ease, or finding the right product). This study examined whether smart purchasing experiences (i.e., effort and time saving, money saving, and making the right purchase) differ by product type, gender, and generation, after adjusting to the same levels of search and planning that were made before purchasing. Using 1474 respondents drawn by an online consumer panel, a series of ANCOVAs along with MANCOVA revealed that members of different genders and generational cohorts, when purchasing different product types, demonstrate distinct smart shopping purchase experiences in terms of saving time/effort, saving money, and making the right purchase. Specific suggestions are made for marketers to target each consumer and product group.</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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.125
Threshold uncertainty score0.323

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.221 · 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