Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to review a popular business handbook – The Business Guide – by James L. Nichols, first published around the turn of the twentieth century. The analysis is geared toward determining how it fits within the development of marketing thought and education. Design/methodology/approach A review of the marketing history literature focusing on marketing thought, education and practice around the turn of the twentieth century is conducted. The content of The Business Guide is analyzed and compared with the themes reflected in the literature review. Findings Most editions appeared in the era just proceeding the emergence of marketing as distinct discipline. It is unlikely that it had any appreciable influence on the development of marketing thought. However, it was used as a textbook at North-Western College in Naperville, IL, and may have been at other early business education programs in the USA and Canada. Nichols’ treatment of marketing topics was consistent with the era. It reflected commodities and functional views. For him, marketing was primarily distribution along with advertising, pricing, product management and credit. Consistent with modern marketing philosophy, Nichols placed heavy emphasis on ethics. Originality/value Despite the fact that this book was published in multiple editions over several decades, it seems to have been largely forgotten. As far as is known, this paper is the only recent treatment of this historical artifact.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.012 |
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".