MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4393390974 · doi:10.5539/ass.v20n2p75

Research on Brand Equity of Intelligent Connected Vehicles in China

2024· article· en· W4393390974 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
LI Ke-yu, Haslinda Hashim, Nor Siah Jaharuddin

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Social Science · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDigital Marketing and Social Media
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChinaBrand equityBusinessEquity (law)AdvertisingMarketingPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the context of global climate change, the advancement of electric vehicles (EV) has emerged as a pivotal strategy for energy conservation and emission reduction within the transportation sector. Leveraging the progress in 5G and IoT technologies, intelligent connected vehicles (ICV) have emerged as a focal point within the realm of electric vehicles, with China spearheading significant developments in this domain. Concurrently, the proliferation of Chinese brand electric vehicles (CBEVs) has been notable in recent years. Nonetheless, academic research on the brand equity of CBEVs remains limited, particularly regarding the influencing factors from the consumer perspective and the functionalities of intelligent connectivity. This study aims to address these gaps by investigating the determinants of brand equity for CBEVs from the consumer standpoint. The findings reveal that consumer attitude, trust, and the intelligent connected feature exert a positive influence on brand equity. This underscores the importance for CBEVs manufacturers to focus on enhancing brand equity by fostering positive consumer attitudes, building trust, and offering comprehensive intelligent connected features.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.454
Teacher spread0.370 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Social Science→Same topicDigital Marketing and Social Media→French-language works237,207→