Identification of critical brand community variables and constructs using importance-performance analysis and neural networks
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 This paper aims to use a unique statistical analysis tool to examine the importance and performance of critical brand community constructs and indicators to make concrete recommendations for brand community managers going forward. Design/methodology/approach An online survey was used to gather 501 responses from North American members of the Qualtrics panel. The data was analyzed with partial least squares (PLS) modeling software SmartPLS and neural networks available in statistical software JMP by SAS. Findings Using the brand community motives by Madupy and Cooley (2010), the results of this paper indicated that there was significant room for improvement in customer engagement. Based on further analysis, entertainment and identification with the brand community were the most important constructs in driving community engagement so that the identification construct received a “do better” ruling meaning that the improvement of the indentification construct score would enhance significantly the score of the target construct engagement score. Originality/value For brand community managers, it is important to know the true importance of the critical brand community constructs and indicators, along with an assessment of current performance. This helps to increase satisfaction and relationship quality among brand community members. The current study uses unique statistical analysis tools to make such concrete recommendations.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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