MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407588172 · doi:10.54254/2754-1169/2025.20924

The Impact of Business Model Innovation on Firm Performance in the New Tea Beverage Industry - A Case Study of Heytea

2025· article· en· W4407588172 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Economics Management and Political Sciences · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicGlobal Trade and Competitiveness
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessBeverage industryIndustrial organizationBusiness modelMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper takes Heytea as an example to deeply explore the far-reaching impact of business model innovation on enterprise performance. In the context of the whole industry, the business innovation model of the tea industry is endless, but the core is mostly focused on the overall change of consumer demand and preference. Heytea has precisely targeted its target customer group - young female white-collar workers, and has carefully planned a series of detailed marketing strategies for this purpose. In order to comprehensively and deeply analyze the actual impact brought by this business model innovation, this paper compares Heytea with other competitors in the industry in multiple dimensions and levels. At the same time, the real feedback and evaluation of Heytea from customers on the network platform were extensively collected. The research results show that Heytea's business model innovation not only directly promotes the shaping of the positive brand image, but also indirectly promotes the substantial growth of corporate profits. Of course, this study also has some limitations, such as the lack of long-term and continuous data support to further verify the stability and universality of the conclusions. On this basis, future studies can further broaden the scope and duration of data collection to obtain more accurate and comprehensive analysis results.

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 score0.517
Threshold uncertainty score0.239

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.271 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in Economics Management and Political SciencesSame topicGlobal Trade and CompetitivenessFrench-language works237,207