MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4297201455 · doi:10.3390/jrfm15100424

Grocery Apps and Consumer Purchase Behavior: Application of Gaussian Mixture Model and Multi-Layer Perceptron Algorithm

2022· article· en· W4297201455 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Aidin Salamzadeh, Pejman Ebrahimi, Maryam Soleimani, Mária Fekete‐Farkas

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDigital Marketing and Social Media
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOverfittingComputer scienceCluster analysisMixture modelMachine learningPython (programming language)Artificial intelligenceMultilayer perceptronPerceptronPersonalizationMarket segmentationk-means clusteringAlgorithmRecommender systemArtificial neural networkMarketingWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study is to investigate and compare the popularity of common grocery apps in Hungary as well as Iran. The data were gathered from Iranian and Hungarian users who had at least one online purchase experience using a grocery app. A Gaussian mixture model (GMM) and multi-layer perceptron (MLP) are used as supervised and unsupervised machine learning algorithms with Python programming to cluster customers and predict consumer behavior. The results revealed that Wolt in Hungary and Snappfood in Iran are the most popular grocery apps. Users in Iran are divided into three groups of users of app services and the type of full covariance has higher accuracy compared to the other three types (96%). Meanwhile, we found that the five apps used in Hungary have provided 95% accuracy from the users’ point of view based on the diagonal covariance. The MSE value (overfitting and cross-validation) is less than 0.1 in the MLP algorithm, which shows an acceptable amount of error. The results of overfitting indicate the proper fit of the MLP model. The findings of this study could be important for managers of online businesses. In the clustering section, the accuracy and value of consumer demographic information have been emphasized. Additionally, in the classification and prediction section, a kind of “customization” has been performed with an emphasis on market segmentation. This research used GMM and MLP machine learning algorithms as a creative way to cluster and classify consumers.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.979
Threshold uncertainty score0.352

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations34
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicDigital Marketing and Social MediaFrench-language works237,207