The effect of marketing 5.0 on marketing performance: The moderating effect of customer resources
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims at exploring the effect of marketing 5.0 as a whole construct on marketing performance and the moderating role of customer resources between these two variables. Moreover, the study aims at examining the effects of marketing 5.0 dimensions, i.e., predictive marketing, contextual marketing, augmented marketing, and agile marketing on marketing performance as well as the moderating role of customer resources in the effect of each dimension on marketing performance. Collecting data by a closed-end questionnaire from a sample consisting of 186 managers and sales persons in clothing shops, the results pointed out that there is a statistically significant effect of marketing 5.0 on marketing performance and there is a statistically significant moderating effect of customer resources between marketing 5.0 and marketing performance. Furthermore, the results revealed that three dimensions of marketing 5.0, i.e., predictive marketing, contextual marketing, and augmented marketing, exerted significant effects on marketing performance. As well, customer resources significantly moderated the effects of predictive marketing and augmented marketing on marketing performance. Such results contribute to marketing performance literature through highlighting the importance of both marketing 5.0 and customer resources together in enhancing marketing performance.
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 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".