MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2979130558 · doi:10.5151/9788580391619-02

Análise Bibliométrica do Comportamento do Consumidor

2016· book-chapter· pt· W2979130558 on OpenAlex

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

VenueEditora Blucher eBooks · 2016
Typebook-chapter
Languagept
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicBusiness and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsPublic Health Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessPolitical scienceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The scientific development, at some point, is given by the need to search and knowledge production, which serves as a support to scholars.Thus, bibliometrics is shown as a great ally, as it promotes the study of periodic which focus on a specific topic, or inter-related topics.So being, this article aims to promote the implementation of an investigative analysis through published academic literature, tangent to consumer behavior based on B2B and B2C, as well as contribute to the bibliometric survey of publications that refer to the consumer behavior.Note also that this examination will stick up-to articles published in ANPAD and CAPES platforms, for the period 2010 and 2014.The results show a total of 8,033 publications.However, the present study analyses only 59 selected articles that guide consumer behavior in various institutions, including public.Among several findings, it was observed that the consumer behavior is linked to the view that the individual has about the quality and the satisfaction is the same.Nevertheless, it was concluded also that because of the aforementioned results, there is a need for studies regarding the theme proposed, due to the lack of published research in public institutions of higher education.

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.

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaBibliometrics
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptBibliometrics
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Other designhigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.256
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.010

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 head0.099
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.242 · 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