Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, we study the Chanderi handloom cluster as a case of market development by applying and extending Bartels’ (1968) theory of market separations. We conduct 12 in-depth semi-structured interviews of various stakeholders involved in the process of market development and validate four market separations suggested by Bartels. Additionally, we also find evidence of a new (fifth) market separation, which we label as ‘social market separation’. We empirically argue that social separation is an equally important market separation that inhibits market development at the Bottom of Pyramid (BOP), often acting as a barrier to market development. It may manifest in various forms such as overbearing social customs and regressive socio-cultural practices that may adversely impact the BOP producers’ capacity to produce or reduce their access to the markets. The implications of our study for development organizations as well as for marketers include recognizing the importance of conducting market linkages programmes for BOP producers by efficient reduction of five market separations to accelerate market development at BOP, leading to developmental gains.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".