Cultural congruity and extensions of corporate heritage brands: An empirical analysis of <scp>time‐honored</scp> brands in China
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
Abstract This article furthers the understanding of cultural congruity in relation to extension evaluations of corporate heritage brands. The extension of corporate heritage brands remains challenging, due to their unique identities around heritage—typically fostering a narrow spectrum of product‐cultural domain. Drawing on the concept of cultural congruity, this paper puts forward the notion that one effective way to break the deadlock of a brand's heritage is to expand into product categories that share the unique cultural heritage in ways that are meaningful, not merely symbolic. Based on data from a large survey on time‐honored brands in China, this paper demonstrates that cultural congruity does not only influence extension evaluations directly, but also indirectly through perceived fit. The findings further indicate that brand cultural heritage positively moderates both direct and indirect effects. This study enhances the concept of product fit from the lens of cultural congruity and opens up a new avenue for managing corporate heritage brands in the marketplace.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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