Façades as product wrap: a typology to identify the consumers affected by product design
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
Purpose The elevation of a residential building, or façade, affords aesthetic and functional value to tenants. Façades embody the design of the core product, i.e. the building’s unit. When carefully executed, they contribute to the attractiveness, livability and sustainability of urban areas. The purpose of this study is to show how façades influence consumer decision, and to identify the consumers affected more by façades, i.e., product design. Design/methodology/approach Hinging on notions from product design and appearance, this research underscores the ways by which façades affect potential tenants. It also proposes that personality dimensions (i.e. concern with own physical appearance and view of achievement) identify the tenants affected more by façades. A study involving 1,091 consumers was performed to test the hypotheses. Findings Functional and aesthetic façades facilitated the tenant decision to buy or rent a living unit in three ways: attraction, convection and conversion. Two tenant segments (performers and egotists) were the most affected by façades. Hence, key consumer segments including self-actualizers would be less influenced by product design. Practical implications Construction companies should focus on delivering functional, aesthetic and well-maintained façades to boost satisfaction and sales. They should view the resources allocated to this purpose as an investment. Certain tenants are more affected by façades. Companies should identify the consumer segments more affected by design cues to better respond to their preferences. Policymakers are encouraged to set guidelines that foster well-executed façades in urban areas. Originality/value This research underscored the ways by which the façades of residential buildings shape consumer decision. In addition, it provided a typology to help pinpoint the tenants more affected by façades. Finally, it elaborated design theories in the context of residential building façades, which can be used by future researchers to understand the role of façade in fulfilling tenants’ needs and expectations.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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