MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3196818594 · doi:10.1108/jhrm-10-2020-0051

(En) act your age! Marketing and the marketization of history in young SMEs

2021· article· en· W3196818594 on OpenAlexaff
Terrance G. Weatherbee, Donna Sears

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Historical Research in Marketing · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicWine Industry and Tourism
Canadian institutionsAcadia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMarketizationBricolageLegitimacyMarketingBusiness historySociologyValue (mathematics)StakeholderPublic relationsBusinessPolitical scienceEconomicsManagementLawPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose This paper aims to examine how wineries used history in their marketing communications to overcome the liability of newness in a settled field that valorizes duration and longevity. Design/methodology/approach A multiple-case study investigated the treatment of history in marketing by young wineries in a new wine region. Data included interviews, site visits and marketing communications. Findings Wineries worked to communicate stakeholder legitimacy and authenticity by constructing organizational histories through bricolage, communicating history in symbolic, material and practice forms. Research limitations/implications Young organizations can communicate field legitimacy and projections of organizational and product authenticity through constructed histories. Results may not be generalizable to other jurisdictions as wine marketing is normatively subject to government regulation. The importance of history in marketing communications also varies across sectors. Practical implications Young businesses in sectors where tradition, place and longevity are venerated can establish authenticity and legitimacy through the marketization of history by following practices that demonstrate adherence to tradition and making thoughtful choices in the construction of the symbolic and material aspects of their organizations. Originality/value This study demonstrates that new/young organizations can use bricolage to create their own marketized histories as proxies for age.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Historical Research in MarketingSame topicWine Industry and TourismFrench-language works237,207