MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2998224842 · doi:10.29145/jmr/22/0202001

Effects of Online Shopping Trends on Consumer-Buying Behaviour: An Empirical Study of Pakistan

2015· article· en· W2998224842 on OpenAlexaff
Dr Rizwana Bashir, Irsa Mehboob, Waqas Khaliq Bhatti

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Management and Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour
Canadian institutionsHeritage College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdvertisingConsumer behaviourVariety (cybernetics)Affect (linguistics)BusinessMarketingProduct (mathematics)Empirical researchPsychologyComputer scienceStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research paper examines the relationship between various factors that affect the consumer behavior towards online shopping. Online shopping refers to the recent trends of being able to buy everything from home. The focus of this research is to explain the influence of five major variables that were derived from literature. These variables are trust, time, product variety, convenience and privacy, which determine how consumer-buying behavior is reflecting online shopping trends. Data was collected through the use of a specified measuring instrument. This instrument was a completely self-developed and standardized questionnaire that comprised of two sections. The statistical analysis of the data reflects that trust and convenience will have great impact on the decision to buy online or not. Trust is been considered as the most relevant factor affecting the customer’s buying behavior towards online shopping when it comes to younger generation.

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 score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.103

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.373
GPT teacher head0.564
Teacher spread0.191 · 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

Citations55
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Management and ResearchSame topicTechnology Adoption and User BehaviourFrench-language works237,207