The Construction and Practice of the Co-Subject Marketing Discourse——A Study on Correction of the Modern Marketing Myopia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Directing at the problems on decoupling between theories and practice of marketing the paper sorts out the development of marketing theories after the proposition of marketing myopia by Levitt from the perspective of analysis of multi-disciplinaries discourse.The paper proposes that the marketing myopia has not been cured and has some new variant,while the modern marketing myopia has the characteristics and shortcomings of the subject centralization.The limitations of research of modern marketing made by modern marketers and marketing research myopia caused by it should be overcame,and breakthrough and methods should be seek from the level of cross-disciplinaries and methodologies by marketing researchers in order to correct modern marketing myopia.Therefore the paper corrects the modern marketing myopia by using the inter-subjectivity,the post-modernity and the network embeddedness as a creative method,reorganizes the new marketing discourse paradigm,which has the meaning of eliminating the two-subject counterposition,and to treat the other kindly,embed and depend on others through networking.The methods,system and vision to practice the new discourse of co-subjective marketing also are discussed in the paper.
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 | 0.010 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".