MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4205103961 · doi:10.1002/jcpy.1286

The role of original process in creating product essence and authenticity

2022· article· en· W4205103961 on OpenAlexaff
Chelsea Galoni, Brendan Strejcek, Kent Grayson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Consumer Psychology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDesign Education and Practice
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAntecedent (behavioral psychology)PerceptionProcess (computing)Value (mathematics)Product (mathematics)PsychologyObject (grammar)EpistemologySocial psychologyCognitive psychologyComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMathematicsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Past research has often reported that perceptions of authenticity are influenced by process cues. The research reported in this article provides evidence for why this is the case. The authors demonstrate that an original process leads to perceptions that the product has a valued essence, which leads to perceptions of authenticity. Previous research has shown that products acquire essence via proximity to original sources of value, and also by cues that the object has been “designed by” a valued creator. Three studies demonstrate that, relative to these previously identified antecedents, original process separately influences perceptions of essence and, therefore, perceptions of authenticity. The authors discuss the theoretical contribution of original process as an antecedent to authenticity and propose managerial implications.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.311 · 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

Citations10
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Consumer PsychologySame topicDesign Education and PracticeFrench-language works237,207