How Recommendation Affects Customer Search: A Field Experiment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The findings of this study have important implications for digital platform designers, managers, and regulators. First, the large-scale field experiment provides valuable insights into the relationship between product recommendation and consumer search under different scenarios. It highlights the importance of understanding consumer demand states and previous interests. Platforms can use these findings to customize product recommendations at an individual level and foster channel complementarity between recommendation and search. Second, the study emphasizes the need to consider channel spillovers. Optimizing recommender systems without considering the impact of channel interactions with search engines may lead to suboptimal results. Platforms should aim for a more coordinated integration of recommendation and search channels, as our conceptual framework illustrates how customers in different demand states can be influenced and served by both systems. Third, the findings offer insights into the potential impact of data regulations on e-commerce platforms. The study demonstrates that data regulations have a greater impact on the recommendation channel compared with the search channel. Platforms should find a balance between recommendation and search when facing stringent data regulations. They may strategically focus on the search channel to gather revealed customer interests, leading to a deeper integration of both channels.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.003 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".