MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392655500 · doi:10.53555/sfs.v8i3.2281

An Analysis Of The Impact Of Return Policies On Online Product Purchasing Behavior.

2022· article· en· W4392655500 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Prof. Dinesh Sonkul

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Survey in Fisheries Sciences · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPurchasingProduct (mathematics)BusinessMarketingAdvertisingMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Conventional marketing strategies are at risk due to the increasing number of online shoppers. Companies must adapt their marketing strategies to leverage the internet. Buyers can now access abundant information online, eliminating the necessity for salespeople to provide information. Online shopping, a type of e-commerce, is favored by customers and businesses for its convenience and extensive reach. With the rise in popularity of the Internet, professionals and scholars developed a greater interest in it. Consumers prioritize pricing, discounts, product variety, and shopping convenience. Shopping has gotten more convenient due to the internet. Opt for internet shopping to save both time and money. Online purchasing is convenient due to the availability of free shipping, savings, user-friendly navigation, and consumer reviews. Behavior is crucial in online transactions. Customers choose their retail channel based on the benefits associated with buying at a store, ordering from a catalogue or mail order, shopping while watching TV, or shopping online. Many internet retailers have reduced prices or improved their items due to their enhanced knowledge and decreased operational expenses. Internet-savvy online shoppers do better.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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 head0.365
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.072 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Survey in Fisheries SciencesSame topicTechnology Adoption and User BehaviourFrench-language works237,207