Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Online word‐of‐mouth (WOM) can impact consumers’ product evaluations, purchase intentions, and choices—but when does it do so? How do those receiving WOM know whether to rely on a particular message? This article suggests that the multiple players involved in online WOM (receivers, senders, sellers, platforms, and other consumers) each have their own interests, which are often in conflict. Thus, receivers of WOM are faced with a judgment task in deciding what information to rely on: They must make inferences about the product in question and about the players who provide or present WOM. To do so, they use signals embedded in various components of WOM, such as average star ratings, message content, or sender characteristics. The product and player information provided by these signals shapes the impact of WOM by allowing receivers to make inferences about (a) their likelihood of product satisfaction, and (b) the trustworthiness of WOM players, and therefore the trustworthiness of their content. This article summarizes how each player changes the impact of online WOM, providing a lens for understanding the current literature in online WOM, offering insights for theory in this context, and opening up pathways for future research.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".