MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4226490156 · doi:10.5267/j.ijdns.2022.1.015

The effect of social media marketing on brand trust, brand equity and brand loyalty

2022· article· en· W4226490156 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Haudi Haudi, Wiwik Handayani, Yohanes Totok Suyoto Musnaini, Teguh Praseti, Endang Pitaloka, Hadion Wijoyo, Hendrian Yonata, Intan Rachmina Koho, Yoyok Cahyono

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Data and Network Science · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicConsumer Behavior and Marketing Influence
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBrand equityBrand loyaltyBusinessBrand awarenessSocial mediaAdvertisingMarketingStructural equation modelingBrand managementSocial media marketingDigital marketingMathematicsComputer scienceStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aims to determine the effect of social media marketing activities on brand trust, brand equity and brand loyalty in social media. The study uses the Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) method with SPSS 3.3.3 software with a sample of 450 respondents determined by the simple random sampling method who had experience of using social media for at least six months. Data was obtained by distributing online questionnaires using google form. The results show that social media marketing has a positive effect on brand trust, social media marketing has a positive influence on brand equity, and social media marketing has a positive influence on brand loyalty. Brand trust has a positive influence on SMEs Performance, Brand equity has a positive influence on SMEs Performance and finally brand loyalty has a positive influence on SMEs Performance.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.287 · 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

Citations146
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Data and Network ScienceSame topicConsumer Behavior and Marketing InfluenceFrench-language works237,207