MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2950264659 · doi:10.1002/cb.1775

Upward intergenerational influences on parents' innovativeness and innovation adoption: A comparative study of single‐ and multiple‐child families

2019· article· en· W2950264659 on OpenAlexaff
Jianping Liang, Hongyan Jiang, June Cotte

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Consumer Behaviour · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsSocializationPsychologyDevelopmental psychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In the marketing and consumer behavior literature, there has been a growing attention on upward intergenerational influences, or reverse socialization, which is largely because of children's increasing influences on family decisions. This paper hypothesizes different patterns of upward intergenerational influences in single versus multiple‐child families, controlling for peer and spousal influences. We found that young adult single children had a direct positive influence on their parents' innovation adoption behavior, but not a significant influence on their parents' overall innovativeness, whereas young adult children with siblings had a different effect: Their innovativeness had a significant positive influence on their parents' overall innovativeness, but not a direct impact on their parents' innovation adoption.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.134
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Consumer BehaviourSame topicTechnology Adoption and User BehaviourFrench-language works237,207