MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2596877887 · doi:10.1108/bfj-08-2016-0360

Consumer involvement and knowledge influence on wine choice cue utilisation

2017· article· en· W2596877887 on OpenAlex
Johan Bruwer, Polymeros Chrysochou, Isabelle Lesschaeve

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Food Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicWine Industry and Tourism
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMarketingProduct (mathematics)OriginalityConsumer choiceWineBusinessAffect (linguistics)Consumer behaviourValue (mathematics)Product categoryAdvertisingPsychologySocial psychologyComputer scienceFood scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine the utilisation of product choice cues in a retail environment and the impact of consumer involvement on this utilisation. It further investigates the impact of product knowledge on product choice cue utilisation and its moderating role on the impact of consumer involvement. Design/methodology/approach The case of wine as an exemplary product category is considered, given the importance and variability of choice cues that have been found to affect product choice. Analysis is conducted on survey data from a sample of wine consumers in Ontario, Canada. Product choice cues are grouped into extrinsic, intrinsic and marketing mix. The importance of how these cues are influenced from different dimensions of consumer involvement is illustrated. Findings The results show that product knowledge has a positive impact on intrinsic product cue utilisation and further moderates this relationship improving the predictability of the hypothesised model. Implications for theory and practice are also discussed. Practical implications From an industry viewpoint, the focus in the past has mostly been on using packaging to attract attention/create awareness, create an image of desirability, etc., but not nearly as much on the functionality aspects thereof; for example alternative smaller packaging sizes to the standard 750 ml wine bottle. Originality/value The study uses a multi-dimensional approach to measure the impact of enduring involvement on utilisation of product choice cues.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.263
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.222 · 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