MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3124243917 · doi:10.1177/09730052241274413

Brand Adoption by BoP Retailers

2024· article· en· W3124243917 on OpenAlex
Piyush Kumar Sinha, Saurabh Rawal, Aakriti Sinha

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

VenueInternational Journal of Rural Management · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicConsumer Retail Behavior Studies
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article brings out the major factors that bottom-of-the-pyramid (BoP) retailers consider when adopting brands. It suggests that, besides the known variables of profitability, relationship and merchandise, these retailers attach importance to efforts that lead to reduced perceived risk. These include replacement and buyback facilities besides credit. They define the relationship with distributors/wholesalers not just as firm-firm business-based, but also as stemming from familial, social and ethnic dimensions. Based on 472 responses of acceptance or rejection from BoP retailers from rural India, the findings show a positive, significant relationship with brand characteristics. On the other hand, product-related factors showed a significant but negative relationship. The study found a significant but negative association between distributor relationship and probability of adoption, which should be considered in conjunction with credit, replacement and buyback facilities. The authors suggest that, while brand demand is a significant factor, strategies based on service-dominant logic would be more effective in sustained adoption of brands among small retailers.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.821
Threshold uncertainty score0.589

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.254
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