MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2619221259 · doi:10.5539/ijms.v9n3p64

Relation between Consumer Innovativeness Behavior and Purchasing Adoption Process: A Study with Electronics Sold Online

2017· article· en· W2619221259 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Anderson Neckel, Ricardo Boeing

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Marketing Studies · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPurchasingMarketingBusinessPurchasing processExplanatory powerConsumer behaviourProcess (computing)Consumption (sociology)Focus groupComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper aims at analyzing the influence of consumer innovativeness behavior on the purchasing adoption process of products sold on the internet. Through a theoretical framework, the Domain Specific Innovativeness (DSI) and New Involvement Profile (NIP) scales were used in the study. The research approach has a mixed methodology, having both qualitative and quantitative approaches. In the qualitative phase, two focus group were conducted, with the objective of aligning the scales with the main research focus, and in the quantitative phase, an online survey with 448 respondents was applied. Data processing was based on multiple linear regression and results shows that the construct of the consumer innovativeness behavior has an explanatory power (R²) of 59.8% relative to the purchasing adoption process by the consumer. The consumers with a stronger innovativeness behavior showed to have similar characteristics when it came to purchasing innovative electronic products, making it easier to lead them to consumption.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.138
GPT teacher head0.457
Teacher spread0.319 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations10
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Marketing StudiesSame topicTechnology Adoption and User BehaviourFrench-language works237,207