MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2495070048 · doi:10.1057/9781137024107_3

Beauty Competition in Central America: Zermat vs Avon

2014· book-chapter· en· W2495070048 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
John D. Daniels, Joseph Ganitsky

Bibliographic record

VenuePalgrave Macmillan UK eBooks · 2014
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicGlobal Trade and Competitiveness
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompetitor analysisBeautyCompetition (biology)AdvertisingBusinessQuarter (Canadian coin)PaymentDirect sellingMarketingValue (mathematics)LoyaltyGeographyArtFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2011, Avon commemorateci its 125th anniversary, and Zermat de Centroamerica (Zermat) its 20th. Two out of five women in 113 countries bought Avon’s beauty and related products. More than 80% of its $10.7 billion in sales were outside its North American division. Meanwhile, Zermat sold $30+ million in four Central American countries. Avon was the world’s largest direct seller, with 6.5 million independent sales representatives (mostly female), while Zermat’s 40,000 reps sold its products through 70+ distribution centers. Direct selling offered cost savings (i.e., fewer direct employees, lower advertising budgets and skipping payments to retailers for shelf space) and marketing advantages (i.e., sales reps with the support of catalogs communicate, promote and earn the loyalty of their customers). These advantages have allowed direct sellers to charge lower prices than those of competitors selling through retailers, thus creating an image of good value. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.125

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0080.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.002

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.187 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePalgrave Macmillan UK eBooksSame topicGlobal Trade and CompetitivenessFrench-language works237,207