MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2894533847 · doi:10.1080/0267257x.2018.1520281

A prototyping analysis of relationship marketing constructs: what constructs to use when

2018· article· en· W2894533847 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Marketing Management · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCustomer Service Quality and Loyalty
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooWilfrid Laurier UniversityMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPremisePhenomenonField (mathematics)Computer scienceKey (lock)PsychologyKnowledge managementMarketingEpistemologyBusinessMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As relationship marketing research evolved, a number of key constructs emerged. Some scholars have argued that these constructs are not conceptually or empirically distinct. We investigate this phenomenon based on the premise that sustained research effort towards studying conceptually overlapping/redundant constructs, while treating them as independent, can hamper the development of the field. We use prototyping, a method adopted from psychology, to examine consumers’ views of these constructs, and then identify relationship contexts where constructs are distinct or redundant.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.133
Threshold uncertainty score0.977

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.231 · 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