Social Commerce Constructs and Buyer-Seller Relationship Quality as a predictor of Intention to Co-Creation in Branding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main objective of this research was to examine the Rating and Reviews, Forums and Communities, and Buyer-Seller Relationship Quality as factors influencing the Intention to Co-creation in Branding. The researchers used quantitative method which involved empirical research. A questionnaire was used to collect data from 512 customers who buy products from online business. The researcher did data analysis by percentage, mean, SD, and Structural Equation Model analysis by AMOS. Referring to research findings, it was found as follows (1) the model for Intention to Co-Creation in Branding which includes Rating and Reviews, Forums and Communities, and Buyer-Seller Relationship Quality was aligned with the empirical data at good level (c2 = 78.903, df = 66, p-value = .133, c2/df = 1.196, GFI = .979, IFI = .996, CFI = .996, RMSEA = .020) (2) the factor of Rating and Reviews, Forums and Communities, and Buyer-Seller Relationship Quality affected the Intention to Co-Creation in Branding at statistical level of significance (p < .05) and all factors predicts the Intention to Co-Creation in Branding at 44.10 (R2 = 0.441).
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".