Franchising research in marketing: suggestions for future research
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In their thoughtful review of franchising research conducted over the prior decade, Dant, Grünhagen, and Windsperger in 2011 sounded the alarm regarding the marketing discipline’s ceding of the franchising phenomenon to scholars in management and economics. The authors use their seminal work as a point of departure, reviewing the trends emerging from an examination of empirical research on franchising published in marketing journals over the ten-year period spanning 2005 to 2014. They note with some satisfaction an increasing interest in issues unique to franchising, including ownership structure, franchisee/franchisor selection, governance, and the performance of both franchisors and their franchisees. The review also describes recent methodological advances, and assesses the extent to which franchising research in marketing has been influential (as reflected in citations) to other areas of study. For scholars with an interest in franchising, the chapter provides information on emerging data sources and suggests possible directions for future research.
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 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 | 0.015 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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 it