MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386896995 · doi:10.32920/24156630

Factors Influencing Consumer Loyalty in Augmented Reality Beauty Apps: Sephora Virtual Artist Empirical Study

2023· preprint· en· W4386896995 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

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicConsumer Behavior and Marketing Influence
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPopularityLoyaltyBeautyAdvertisingAugmented realityBrand loyaltyValue (mathematics)BusinessEmpirical researchMarketingPsychologyComputer scienceAestheticsSocial psychologyArtHuman–computer interaction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>With increase in usage of online mobile shopping apps, app developers and marketers are seeking innovative options to provide consumers with unique shopping experiences. In recent times, Virtual try-on feature in augmented reality apps have gained popularity. This study extends the electronic service quality model (ES-QUAL) with Hedonic Motivation and Perceived Value and seeks to explain the factors influencing consumer loyalty intentions in AR beauty apps. Sephora is a leading brand in the cosmetic industry and Virtual Artist is its augmented reality try-on feature. An online survey was conducted with 251 university students. PLS-SEM analysis results suggest that Hedonic Motivation and Efficiency significantly impact loyalty intentions, while Perceived value, Perceived Privacy Risks, System Availability and Fulfilment were not significant. This study contributes to the existing literature in the domain of consumers loyalty intentions and AR apps. Retail practitioners can use the results to boost consumer loyalty and predict purchase intention. </p>

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.129
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.223 · 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