MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4378571662 · doi:10.35335/enrichment.v12i5.912

An Effect of Product Quality, Price, and Word of Mouth on Buying Interest : A case of Tretes Porridge in Binjai

2022· article· en· W4378571662 on OpenAlexaff
Selfira Yap, Muhammad Umar Maya Putra, Syafrida Damanik

Bibliographic record

VenueEnrichment Journal of Management · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicConsumer Behavior and Marketing Influence
Canadian institutionsKootenay Association for Science & Technology
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsProduct (mathematics)Word of mouthQuality (philosophy)AdvertisingSample size determinationSample (material)MarketingStatisticsBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Small and medium enterprises (SMEs) is one of the supporting economic growths of a region. Small and medium size business can be developed by increasing the buying interest of the people around. Buying interest is the desire that arises from consumers to a product as a result of the consumer's observation of a product. This research is quantitative research with a sample of 109 respondents. This study focuses on the effect of product quality, price, and word of mouth on interest buying : a case of Bubur Tretes Binjai. This research was conducted in Binjai . The population of this study is the customer of Bubur Tretes that is located in Binjai. The researcher concluded that taking a sample of 109 respondents. Primary data were gathered by using questionnaires. The data were analyzed by using structural equation modeling-partial least squares (SEM-PLS) with SmartPLS software. The result of this study indicated that the variable product quality (X1) partially had a significant effect on buying interest, the price variable (X2) partially had not significant effect on buying interest, and word of mouth variable (X3) partially had a significant effect on buying interest. Simultaneously, product quality, price , and word of mouth influence buying interest on the traditional product of Bubur Tretes in Binjai. From the results of data processing, it was found that the coefficient of determination was 69.2% which indicates that X1, X2, and X3 together were able to influence Y by 69.2% with a moderate category, the remaining 30.8% was influenced by other factors.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnrichment Journal of ManagementSame topicConsumer Behavior and Marketing InfluenceFrench-language works237,207