MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3209235781 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14646219.v1

How online fashion videos affect consumer’s brand perceptions: an exhibition of academic thesis.

2021· preprint· en· W3209235781 on OpenAlexaff
Ryan Payne

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicConsumer Behavior in Brand Consumption and Identification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRecallAffect (linguistics)PsychologyPerceptionEye trackingCognitionExhibitionAdvertisingGazeSocial psychologyApplied psychologyCognitive psychologyCommunicationComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this research is to explore how online fashion videos affect consumers’ perception toward fashion brands. This study builds upon research in cognitive processing, attitude formation and interactive online technology. This study used optometric or gaze tracking to follow what participants focused upon when exposed to fashion videos. All participants were female, half in fashion related programs and the other half in non-fashion, non-design related programs. A semi-structured interview, visual stimuli (video), and pre-/post-questionnaire were used. The study found that participants did not fully remember videos to which they have been exposed to or content upon which they had focused. However, it is important to note that participants could recall a considerable amount of information when their eye pupils dilated during viewing. Although participants’ perceptions toward video did not show significant changes after they found out the brand name, they tended to use different words or vocabularies from the pre-questionnaire survey to describe the brand image. It is evident that the relationship between pupil dilation and memory recall is positive. As this study deals with perceptions, further investigation into participant’s memories and associations with visual attributes will provide additional considerations, particularly how associations are made and recalled by viewers over time and after exposed to a brand’s messages over a period of time.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.000

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicConsumer Behavior in Brand Consumption and IdentificationFrench-language works237,207