The Evaluation of Cultural Differences on the Identity of the Window Display: The Case Study of the Perception of British and Thai Consumers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Window display is a marketing tool for products presentation and sale promotion as well as product image promotion. There are some researches that tried to describe relationship between consumer behavior and window display design by using marketing concept and psychologically acknowledge but they are not involve to cross culture. However, consumer’s perception depends on their background, experience and cultural factor. Our research attempts to evaluate the cross culture consumer perception on window display identity; case study on the Thai and British. The study based on cross cultural perception, environmental psychology and design elements of shop window display concept. The photograph of shop window display and questionnaire were used for the research tools. Finally, the research found that Thai and British view the design of window display as a whole as well as its light, colour, composition and theme’s concept are the design elements that work as the stimulus to consumers. The consumer’s perception was described by 13 bi-polar words. Factor analysis was used to group and reduce variables. The new variables were pleasant/unpleasant and arousing/not arousing that were used for creates a model that describe the consumer feeling on window display identity.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".