MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2940690813 · doi:10.1080/10696679.2019.1577689

Forging a Stronger Academic-Practitioner Partnership–The Case of Net Promoter Score (NPS)

2019· article· en· W2940690813 on OpenAlex
Neil Bendle, Charan K. Bagga, Alina Nastasoiu

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

VenueThe Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAccounting and Organizational Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeneral partnershipNet (polyhedron)Medical educationBusinessComputer scienceKnowledge managementPublic relationsPsychologyPolitical scienceMedicineFinanceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research examines the issues that impede the development of robust academic analysis of popular managerial practices and metrics using the case of the Net Promoter Score/System (NPS). The issues identified include limited academic access to the original methodology/data underlying a managerial practice, different vocabularies used by academics and practitioners, the inability of academics to disprove unfalsifiable claims, and the lack of any precise specification of theory. Finally, academics’ failure to pay detailed attention to dependent variables leads to confused messages being sent to managers. We offer recommendations to overcome these issues.

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)0.069
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.640
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0690.017
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.247 · 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