MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405830946 · doi:10.18280/ijdne.190617

Utilization of Artificial Neural Network for Assessment of Relationship Marketing Influence of Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) Farmers

2024· article· en· W4405830946 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Euis Dasipah, Sri Ayu Andayani, Nendah Siti Permana, Mai Fernando Nainggolan

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural and Food Production Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSolanumArtificial neural networkBiotechnologyAgricultural engineeringEngineeringBiologyHorticultureComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tomato plants have the potential to be a significant source of income because they are consumed daily and have high economic value.However, tomato production is constrained by suboptimal distribution, which is evident from low consumer loyalty due to inadequate relationship marketing.The Lembang region of West Java Province, Indonesia, a prominent horticultural center for tomatoes, serves as the research location.This study aims to analyze the impact of relationship marketing by tomato farmers on consumer loyalty, with the goal of making recommendations to enhance trust and ensure the continuity of tomato production.The analysis employs techniques such as the Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy Inference System (ANFIS) and MicMac methods, which complement and reinforce each other.The analysis results reveal that relationship marketing is the primary factor in building consumer loyalty among tomato farmers in the Lembang area, as demonstrated by the ANFIS program's prediction accuracy of 97.1%.The variables that affect the loyalty of tomato farmers in consumers are price suitability, crop sales, trust in consumers.The implications of this research indicate a relevant relationship between demand and supply so that production continuity and price stability can be maintained.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.721
Threshold uncertainty score0.133

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 teacher head, 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 venueInternational Journal of Design & Nature and EcodynamicsSame topicAgricultural and Food Production StudiesFrench-language works237,207