MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Segmenting the Retail Customers

2022· book-chapter· en· W4282009607 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in marketing, customer relationship management, and e-services book series · 2022
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCustomer churn and segmentation
Canadian institutionsCrandall University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMarket segmentationCluster analysisBusinessSegmentationMarketingService (business)Marital statusCHAIDComputer scienceData miningArtificial intelligenceDecision treeSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The goal of “serving all” is similar to “serving none.” Marketers are constantly looking for ways to refine the way they segment markets. Segmentation involves diving markets into smaller portions (segments) of consumers with similar needs for a given good or service. This chapter explores the application of various algorithms and analytical techniques that are used to segment markets. These techniques include regression, cross-tabulation, hierarchical clustering, and k-means clustering performed through analytical tools such as R-Studio and MS Excel. The analyses drew upon the “customer data” dataset, which contained eight variables: age, income, marital status, ownership status, household size, family total sales, and family total visit. The findings demonstrate how such statistics could help the businesses understand the customers and target the specific customer with unique campaigns and offerings.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.978
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.006
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.210 · 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