MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3200897107 · doi:10.3390/su131810375

Consumer Knowledge Sharing Behavior and Consumer Purchase Behavior: Evidence from E-Commerce and Online Retail in Hungary

2021· article· en· W3200897107 on OpenAlexaff
Pejman Ebrahimi, Khadija Aya Hamza, Éva Görgényi-Hegyes, Hadi Zarea, Mária Fekete‐Farkas

Bibliographic record

VenueSustainability · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDigital Marketing and Social Media
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPurchasingKnowledge sharingBusinessMarketingCompetitive advantagePopulationTest (biology)Consumer behaviourSocial mediaOrganizational citizenship behaviorOrder (exchange)Knowledge managementPsychologyComputer scienceSociologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The twenty-first century has been full of fundamental changes in consumers’ behavior patterns, especially with the use of diverse social media knowledge-sharing platforms. Therefore, companies have highlighted the significance of knowledge sharing and the importance of social network use in purchasing processes. Accordingly, his paper tries to reveal how consumer purchase behavior (CPB) can be affected by consumer knowledge sharing behavior (CKSB) and the moderating role played by value co-creation dimensions, which are citizenship behavior (CB) and participation behavior (PB), within a sustainable e-commerce field. To test our hypotheses deducted from the literature review, we opted for the PLS-SEM method. We also employed other innovative approaches, such as the IPMA matrix, MAICOM test, FIMIX approach, and CTA analysis, to evaluate the outer and inner model. Our statistical population covered individuals living in Hungary with at least one online purchase involvement. We distributed the questionnaire via various online platforms and, finally, 433 completed questionnaires were prepared for analysis. The results showed that CPB, CB, and PB are positively influenced by the CKSB. However, the link between CPB and CB was not confirmed. As for the moderating role of gender, the permutation test was applied to compare male and female groups and see the difference between them. With a focus on CKSB, this study contributes to the success of international marketing strategies to attain higher competitive advantages.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.096
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.312 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations43
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSustainabilitySame topicDigital Marketing and Social MediaFrench-language works237,207