MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2904067160 · doi:10.22215/etd/2014-10238

A Study of Young Consumers’ In-Store Food Shopping Behaviour For Developing Smart Mobile Devices

2014· dissertation· en· W2904067160 on OpenAlexaff
Belal Alsibai

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicConsumer Retail Behavior Studies
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPersonalizationPurchasingBusinessOrder (exchange)MarketingPoint (geometry)AdvertisingProcess (computing)Point of saleMobile deviceKey (lock)Value (mathematics)Consumer behaviourComputer scienceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to explore in-store food purchasing behaviour of young adults with particular reference to the five-stage consumer purchase decisionmaking process, and to explore how current mobile technologies can aid consumers' instore food shopping experience.The researcher hypothesizes that consumers will have better food shopping experiences through customization and personalization of mobile applications to create personal value during in-store food shopping situations.A study was conducted where the researcher observed and shadowed a group of young adults to help the researcher learn about what information shoppers look for, and what their food choices are based on.The study discovered that there are a number of influential factors that contributed to a purchase decisions that participants assessed simultaneously.Results showed that key design functions for mobile tools and applications using existing technologies such as Mobile Recommendation Agents (MRA's) can enhance the usefulness of such tools and applications in order to create more personalized food-shopping experiences and to help consumers make the most informed purchase decisions by seeking information at the point-of-purchase, thereby alleviating any post-purchase psychological tension or anxiety.The results of this research provide valuable insights and recommendations for designers to develop mobile tools and applications for food shopping situations.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicConsumer Retail Behavior StudiesFrench-language works237,207