MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2965784270

제네릭브랜드의 노자 실용주의적 고찰 - 노브랜드와 무인양품 비교를 중심으로 -

2019· article· ko· W2965784270 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
황현택

Bibliographic record

Venue상품문화디자인학연구(구 한국상품문화디자인학회 논문집) · 2019
Typearticle
Languageko
FieldEngineering
TopicEngineering Applied Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPragmatismCapitalismBrand equityAdvertisingProfit (economics)EmptinessBrand awarenessValue (mathematics)Brand managementFunction (biology)MarketingBusinessEconomicsNeoclassical economicsEpistemologyMathematicsPhilosophyPolitical scienceLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

National brand made change at advent of generic brand of which birth and development were based on principle of capitalism market. Nature of generic brand and consumers' selection were difficult to explain by economic efficiency. This study explained difference between American pragmatism and Laozi's practicalism, and investigated stops by itself and satisfaction(知足), emptiness(虛) and inactivity(無爲) and described difference between No Brand and MUJI brand. First, not only generic brand but also no brand with Western pragmatism philosophy thought much of value of profit of maximum efficiency in capitalism society to say stops by itself and satisfaction of Laozi. Second, brand naming of No Brand rejected brand in favor of consumers, and naming said emptiness of function of article. Third, package design of No Brand was common like no name in Canada to follow universal design looking for function, and package design of MUJI showed effort of inactivity.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue상품문화디자인학연구(구 한국상품문화디자인학회 논문집)Same topicEngineering Applied ResearchFrench-language works237,207