MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312222913 · doi:10.54691/bcpbm.v34i.3061

Luxury and the Metaverse

2022· article· en· W4312222913 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

VenueBCP Business & Management · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVirtual Reality Applications and Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetaverseRevenuePerspective (graphical)Field (mathematics)Profit (economics)MarketingPossible worldComputer scienceBusinessEconomicsHuman–computer interactionEpistemologyVirtual realityMicroeconomicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Metaverse serves as a new emerging field in the field of marketing, the concept of the Metaverse is being used by different companies to increase their sale revenue. Most luxury brands see this as a new opportunity to rebrand themselves to attract the young generation of customers from online communities. In this article, two brands Gucci and Givenchy will be discussed and compared in terms of their perspective field: Feedback, Target, and Profit. After examination, it is believed that the Metaverse can gain some discussion and topics from the online communities and serves its purpose to attract online customers. However, the Metaverse is developed too fast in its initial stage in which the basic setting and virtual communities are not perfect which results in its decline in 2022.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.882
Threshold uncertainty score0.291

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.217
Teacher spread0.206 · 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