The effect of mixed marketing moderation and innovation on the influence of market orientation and entrepreneurship orientation toward marketing performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to: 1) describe market orientation, entrepreneurship orientation, innovation, mixed marketing and marketing performance, 2) analyze the effect of market orientation and entrepreneurship orientation on innovation, the effect of market orientation and entrepreneurship orientation on the mixed marketing, the influence of market orientation and entrepreneurship orientation on marketing performance. The study is a causality descriptive study to conduct clarity of the correlation and the influence of cause and effect among variables. The analysis technique is statistics descriptive and SEM. The findings of this study are as follows: a) Market orientation effects the innovation of Food and Beverage SMEs in Religious Tourism in Kudus, b) Entrepreneurship orientation effects the innovation of Food and Beverage SMEs of Religious Tourism in Kudus, c) Market orientation effects the mixed marketing of Food and Beverage SMEs of Religious Tourism, d) Entrepreneurship orientation affects the mixed marketing of Food and Beverage SMEs of Religious Tourism, e) Market orientation and Entrepreneurship orientation effect the marketing performance of Food and Beverage SMEs of Religious Tourism, f) Entrepreneurship orientation effects marketing performance of Food and Beverage SMEs of Religious Tourism, g) Innovation effects marketing performance of Food and Beverage SMEs of Religious Tourism, h) Mixed marketing effects marketing performance of Food and Beverage SMEs of Religious Tourism, i) Market orientation influences marketing performance of Food and Beverage SMEs of Religious Tourism by innovation, j) Entrepreneurship orientation influences marketing performance of Food and Beverage SMEs of Religious Tourism along with innovation.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".