MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2788204634 · doi:10.5539/ibr.v11n4p17

Determining Antecedent of Re-Purchase Intention: The Role of Perceived Value and Consumer’s Interest Factor

2018· article· en· W2788204634 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Y. Can, Oya Erdil

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Business Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicConsumer Behavior in Brand Consumption and Identification
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAntecedent (behavioral psychology)LoyaltyBrand loyaltyPsychologyAffect (linguistics)MarketingQuality (philosophy)AdvertisingValue (mathematics)BusinessSocial psychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the widespread use of smartphones, strategic marketing of smartphones has become the focus of related brands. Although creating brand loyalty is an important factor of global strategic marketing and re-purchase intention, little research investigated the antecedent of smartphone's brand loyalty and repurchase intention. The purposes of this study are to investigate what are the antecedent brand loyalty and re-purchase intention in smartphone marketing. In the light of the literature and for this purpose; the effects of perceived value factor (perceived ease of use, perceived irreplaceability), utilitarian factor (system quality), hedonic factor (visual design), and consumer’s interest factor (technology consciousness) on brand loyalty and repurchase intention were investigated in an integrated model. The results of the analysis show that smartphone's re-purchase intention is largely determined by brand loyalty, perceived ease of use, perceived irreplaceability, system quality, visual design, and technology consciousness. Moreover, analysis results demonstrate that perceived irreplaceability, system quality, and visual design affect brand loyalty.

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)0.007
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.137
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations8
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Business ResearchSame topicConsumer Behavior in Brand Consumption and IdentificationFrench-language works237,207