A bartender, a brand rep and a customer walk into a bar: an exploration of the expert middleperson in the Persuasion Knowledge Model
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
this research explores the relationship between liquor brand representatives and bartenders, its effects on the bartenders' profession and subsequent theoretical implications from a Persuasion knowledge Model perspective.seven senior craft cocktail bartenders who act as both 'agent' and 'target' in the sale of alcohol were interviewed.as the 'target' , they work with brand representatives who try to persuade them to purchase the brand's product(s) for resale.as the 'agent' , they then persuade their customers to purchase products.this study uses a grounded theory approach with a thematic analysis to examine the experiences of craft cocktail bartenders.Four themes emerged that were categorized as (1) passion, (2) purism, (3) storytelling and (4) personal branding.Findings were put into the Persuasion knowledge Model, adding depth to our understanding of the model when someone with high topic, agent, and persuasion knowledge is both an 'agent' and a 'target' .results showed: bartenders' high knowledge (topic, agent and persuasion) leads to both skepticism or trust in the brand representatives, depending on the level of knowledge the brand representative displays and whether or not that satisfies the bartender's expectations; when a 'target' is an expert, 'agent' attitude is second to topic knowledge; bartenders use the same persuasion attempts as the 'agent' that are effective on them as the 'target'; when bartenders felt validated, this aided in persuasion; when 'targets' are passionate, they respond more favourably to 'agents' they perceive as passionate; bartenders actively seek topic knowledge through internal motivations; and bartenders' passion informs their persuasion attempts.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it