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 OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

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.

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.063
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.725
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.063
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.382
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