Consumers' waiting in queues: The role of first‐order and second‐order justice
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
Abstract Past research on queuing has identified social justice as an important determinant of consumers' waiting experiences. In queuing settings, people's perception of social justice is affected by whether the principle of first in and first out (FIFO) has been violated. However, even when service follows the FIFO principle, waiting time may still differ from one consumer to another for various reasons. For instance, a consumer who happens to arrive in the queue after a large group of people may have to wait longer than average. In this research, it is argued that, aside from and independent of the FIFO principle, consumers also care about whether everyone spends an approximately equal amount of time waiting before availing of the product or service. When consumers perceive that they have spent more time waiting than others and when they can attribute this injustice to the service provider, they will be less satisfied with the waiting experience. It is also proposed that adherence to the FIFO principle is a more salient concern to consumers (thus termed “first‐order” justice), and equal waiting time (”second‐order” justice) matters only when first‐order justice is not an issue. Three studies support the predictions. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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