MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2884275430 · doi:10.5539/ass.v14n8p37

Brand Activation: A Review on Conceptual and Practice Perspectives

2018· review· en· W2884275430 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ravindra Dissanayake, Nisal Gunawardane

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Social Science · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicConsumer Behavior in Brand Consumption and Identification
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Empirical researchFoundation (evidence)Brand managementScope (computer science)MarketingBrand equityExperiential learningBusinessSociologyPolitical scienceEpistemologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Brand activations is claimed as a notion found within experiential and behavioral contexts of branding. There are empirical studies claim brand activation is inline within the scope of event marketing. As per some arguments, brand activation finds itself imprecise foundation to explain its theoretical foundation. Supportively, studies are highlighting theoretical and empirical scant in examining influence of brand activation though practices are extendedly found. Alongside, this paper attempts to review the notion of brand activation in relation to empirical explanations, cases and its presence in different scenarios. Authors followed literature review as the main research strategy whilst specific attention was made to Asian market context in explaining cases and practices. Accordingly, paper investigates the concept of brand activation in relations to different scopes including branding, consumer behavior whilst digital or viral marketing platforms are also referred. Authors discuss the influence and association of brand activation with reference to different scenarios and cases directing future research requirements. Paper concludes research propositions in line with the empirical justifications encouraging future research priorities.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.988
Threshold uncertainty score0.793

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.102
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations7
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Social ScienceSame topicConsumer Behavior in Brand Consumption and IdentificationFrench-language works237,207