APPLICATION OF PYTHON IN MARKETING EDUCATION: A BIG DATA ANALYTICS PERSPECTIVE
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
In the era of big data, many business organizations consider data analytics skills as important criteria in the acquisition of qualified applicants. As numerous managerial decisions in the field of marketing are becoming evidence-based, business schools have integrated case studies about different stages of data analytics such as problem identification, data collection, data processing, data analysis and data visualization in order to improve the knowledge of marketing students. Although case studies can provide a good theoretical foundation about data analytics in the field of marketing, but they may not be sufficient for building analytical skills from a technical perspective. This paper provides a guideline on how Python as a programming language can be used to explore large datasets and improve marketing students’ capabilities with a focus on data processing, data analysis and data visualization tasks. In this research, a survey was conducted to measure the teaching effectiveness and overall satisfaction of marketing students (n = 84) in a Canadian university. The evidence suggests that Python libraries designed for marketing-related data analysis and data visualization have positive outcomes in students’ learning experience and perception of teaching effectiveness.
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 | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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