MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4213276417 · doi:10.17771/pucrio.acad.54102

INFLUENCIADORES DIGITAIS: AGENTES POTENCIALIZADORES DO PROCESSO DE DECISÃO DE COMPRA DE PRODUTOS DE BELEZA PARA CABELOS CACHEADOS E CRESPOS

2021· dissertation· pt· W4213276417 on OpenAlexaff
LARISSA CRISTINE FLOR CARVALHO

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languagept
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAcademic Research in Diverse Fields
Canadian institutionsDalsa Corporation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExploratory researchSubjectivityAdvertisingPoint (geometry)BusinessPsychologySociologySocial scienceMathematicsPhilosophyEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

você fazer parte dessa etapa.A todos os amigos que eu fiz na PUC, em especial à Gabriela, quem passou todas as tristezas e alegrias comigo dentro e fora da universidade e que hoje é uma grande amiga que irei levar para o resto da vida.Resumo Carvalho, Larissa.Influenciadores digitais: agentes potencializadores no processo de decisão de compra de produtos de beleza para cabelos cacheados e crespos.Rio de Janeiro, 2021.35 p. Trabalho de Conclusão de Curso -Departamento de Administração.Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro.Este trabalho busca entender o papel das influenciadoras digitais no processo de decisão de compra de mulheres que utilizam produtos para cabelos cacheados e crespos e o como essa influência é capaz de impactar o comportamento das consumidoras.Para isso, foi analisado os seguintes conceitos: decisão de compra, grupos de referência, marketing digital e Instagram.Para compreender o consumidor, foi feita uma pesquisa qualitativa e de natureza exploratória que leva em consideração o ponto de vista e a parcialidade das entrevistadas.Com esse resultado foi possível entender de que forma as mulheres que tem o cabelo cacheado ou crespo são influenciadas pelas blogueiras.

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)0.009
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.344 · 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 topicAcademic Research in Diverse FieldsFrench-language works237,207