MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2549266666 · doi:10.5430/ijba.v7n6p91

Big Data as a Customer Management Relationship Tool

2016· article· en· W2549266666 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Leonardo de Lima Francisco, Wenderson Fernandes Moura, Leandro Ricardo Sabino, Valdeci Ferreira dos Santos, Rodrigo Barreto Esquarcio

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Business Administration · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicData Analysis and Archiving
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRelation (database)Big dataComputer scienceRelevance (law)Context (archaeology)Customer relationship managementThe InternetData scienceValue (mathematics)Key (lock)MarketingCompetitive advantageVolume (thermodynamics)GlobalizationKnowledge managementBusinessWorld Wide WebData miningEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Considering the growth of globalization and the constant technological innovations, fields such as Internet and Social Networks have been brought into relevance – if not into prevalence – with organizations’ attempts of better understanding their customers – having always preserving their business and becoming more competitive to the eye of the market as their main challenges. In this context, the increased data volume and speed naturally demands organizations to develop processes and mechanisms to analyze and interpret data for decision making. The objective of this article – which is based on secondary data research and theoretical comparison among the authors of the themes, analysis of key-concept and case studies – is to introduce the relation between a data compilation tool, named Big Data, and its relations with marketing as a customer relations vehicle, in a quest for adding value to business.

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.041
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.093

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.041
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0090.011
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0110.012
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.100
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.274 · 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
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

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Business AdministrationSame topicData Analysis and ArchivingFrench-language works237,207