MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2624125453 · doi:10.5430/jbar.v6n2p15

Review of the Research on the Impact of Online Shopping Return Policy on Consumer Behavior

2017· article· en· W2624125453 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Miao Wang, Hongjian Qu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Business Administration Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDigital Marketing and Social Media
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerceptionMarketingDimension (graph theory)Rate of returnConsumer behaviourRisk perceptionBusinessQuality (philosophy)AdvertisingPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Based on the relevant literature, this paper study the impact of online shopping return policy on consumer purchase behavior from the dimension of return policy, consumer perception, consumer purchase behavior and so on. In the online shopping environment, the return problem between retailers and consumers is more obvious. Based on the researching achievements of predecessors, return policy can be divided into three dimensions: return cost, return time limit and efforts. Consumer psychological perception of return policy is based on the traditional consumer perception, which can be summarized into three aspects: perceived risk, perceived quality and perceived fairness. In the online shopping environment, the consumer purchase behavior is still a specific research and in-depth discussion. The return policy, as the key information between the two decision points, is of great importance to consumers' purchase and return behaviors.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.008
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.382
GPT teacher head0.581
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations16
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Business Administration ResearchSame topicDigital Marketing and Social MediaFrench-language works237,207