MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2937256995 · doi:10.5430/ijba.v10n3p74

Influence of Shopping Experience on Shopping/Convenience Store Selection

2019· article· en· W2937256995 on OpenAlex
Malik Mubashir Hussain, Danish Ahmed Siddiqui

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Business Administration · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicConsumer Retail Behavior Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSelection (genetic algorithm)DestinationsMeasure (data warehouse)BusinessAdvertisingPerceptionService (business)MarketingStructural equation modelingComputer scienceTourismPsychologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper the influence of shopping experience on a specific shopping store selection has been investigated. Four dimensions of shopping experience namely Accessibility, Atmosphere, Environment and Service Personnel were proposed, and a 15-item measure is developed to measure 304 consumer perceptions of the shopping experience across different regions of Pakistan using Structural Equation Modelling. Findings indicate that shopping experience enjoyment has a significant positive influence upon customers’ selection of shopping destinations. Furthermore, the study highlights different aspects under which these preferences could be altered such as under gender Influence, economic factors, legal boundaries; these preferences seem to be affected up to a considerable amount and the impact of such factors could not be overlooked.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.538

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.260 · 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