MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3125262073 · doi:10.1509/jmkg.70.1.092.qxd

How Does Enforcement Deter Gray Market Incidence?

2006· article· en· W3125262073 on OpenAlexaff
Kersi D. Antia, Mark Bergen, Shantanu Dutta, Robert J. Fisher

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Marketing · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicSecurities Regulation and Market Practices
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnforcementGrey marketGray (unit)BusinessDeterrence theoryMarketingCertaintyEconomicsLawPolitical scienceMarket economyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gray market activity has become increasingly prevalent. The prevailing wisdom in marketing is to use more severe enforcement to deter gray marketing. However, the certainty and speed of enforcement may also have a bearing on the incidence of violations. This article examines whether and how enforcement deters gray marketing. The results from a field survey of manufacturers and an experimental design suggest that, by itself, enforcement severity has no impact. Deterrence results only when the multiple facets of enforcement are used in combination.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.042
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations93
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of MarketingSame topicSecurities Regulation and Market PracticesFrench-language works237,207