The effects of social media platforms in influencing consumer behavior and improving business objectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research focuses on studying the effect of using social media platforms on customer behavior and business objectives in Jordan. The research chose three of the most famous platforms of social media and those platforms are Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter. By using a quantitative model this research collected around 350 research questionnaires using digital surveys designed by using Google drive and distributed online on previous social media platforms. The research analysis process is executed by using AMOS software, and this comprised structural equations (SEM) modeling and regression analyses. The research study output found strong effects and relationships between social media platforms engagement and a variety of consumer expenditure variables, including brand loyalty, product suggestions, and purchase decisions. Important components of each platform, including user interaction, influencer endorsements, and content relevancy, were also identified by the study as having a direct effect on consumer behavior. The research also showed how businesses may achieve their marketing objectives, boost customer engagement, and enhance their reputation by utilizing social media strategies. The significance of social media website platforms in shaping consumer behavior and propelling business success is highlighted by these studies. To reach their goals and have the most influence on customer decisions, businesses should think about using platform-specific features and investing in targeted social media advertising.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".