Artificial intelligence (AI) and its implications for market knowledge in B2B marketing
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
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explain the technological phenomenon artificial intelligence (AI) and how it can contribute to knowledge-based marketing in B2B. Specifically, this paper describes the foundational building blocks of any artificial intelligence system and their interrelationships. This paper also discusses the implications of the different building blocks with respect to market knowledge in B2B marketing and outlines avenues for future research. Design/methodology/approach The paper is conceptual and proposes a framework to explicate the phenomenon AI and its building blocks. It further provides a structured discussion of how AI can contribute to different types of market knowledge critical for B2B marketing: customer knowledge, user knowledge and external market knowledge. Findings The paper explains AI from an input–processes–output lens and explicates the six foundational building blocks of any AI system. It also discussed how the combination of the building blocks transforms data into information and knowledge. Practical implications Aimed at general marketing executives, rather than AI specialists, this paper explains the phenomenon artificial intelligence, how it works and its relevance for the knowledge-based marketing in B2B firms. The paper highlights illustrative use cases to show how AI can impact B2B marketing functions. Originality/value The study conceptualizes the technological phenomenon artificial intelligence from a knowledge management perspective and contributes to the literature on knowledge management in the era of big data. It addresses calls for more scholarly research on AI and B2B marketing.
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 | 0.014 | 0.020 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it