MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Big Data with Cloud Computing Model for Customer Need Identification in E-Commerce Industry

2024· article· en· W4400315479 on OpenAlexaff
Kirti Mahajan, Dibyhash Bordoloi, Coral Barboza, Divya Bansal, B. Madhava Rao, Sri Varshini S

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBig Data and Business Intelligence
Canadian institutionsHorizon College and Seminary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCloud computingComputer scienceBig dataIdentification (biology)Data scienceData modelingE-commerceData miningDatabaseWorld Wide WebOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, we investigate how Big Data and Cloud computing can work together to better understand what online shoppers really want. The proliferation of e-commerce has increased the importance of listening to and meeting the requirements of customers. This research utilizes a wide variety of data sources to perform descriptive and predictive analysis, including customer transaction records, website clickstream data, customer reviews, and social media interactions. The prediction model's impressive prognostic accuracy may be attributed to its incorporation of client demographics, historical purchase history, and sentiment analysis. Text mining and natural language processing (NLP) are proven to provide insights from consumer input, while cloud computing architecture is shown to increase operational efficiency and scalability. In this paper, we explore how E-commerce enterprises may benefit from this game-changing technology by improving their customer service, cutting costs, and gaining an edge in the market. Business leaders, data scientists, cloud providers, academics, and the public all stand to gain from this study's findings. Future research directions that hold promise for keeping the E-commerce landscape at the cutting edge of innovation and customer-centric strategies include advanced deep learning techniques; real-time customer need identification; data privacy; scalability; cross-channel analysis; and industry benchmarking.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.086

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.191
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.145 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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 topicBig Data and Business IntelligenceFrench-language works237,207