MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409603233 · doi:10.61091/jcmcc127b-137

Design of Computational Identification Model and Optimization Strategy for Consumer Demand Based on Multimodal Data Fusion

2025· article· en· W4409603233 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial Computing · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicE-commerce and Technology Innovations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIdentification (biology)Computer scienceFusionMachine learningArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper draws a framework for constructing user demand modal information, uses crawler technology to obtain online review text information, processes the text information, and mines relevant consumer demand information.The LDA topic model is used to extract the topics of consumer concern from the online comments, identify the topics of consumer demand and clarify the concern degree of each demand.The KANO model is proposed to establish a consumer demand classification method based on the KANO model by combining product characteristic attributes and consumer demand information.Examine the theme discrimination performance of the LDA model on the hotel category, footwear category, and food category datasets.Combine the preprocessed user demand data to statistically quantify user demand for quantitative Kano transformation.Classify user demands into Kano categories and calculate the priority order of user demands to get the product optimization strategy.The weighted order of consumers' demands for automobiles is footrest, cigarette lighter, antenna, window, low beam, key, etc. in order.It can be found that automobile consumers pay more attention to the needs of antenna, cigarette lighter, pedals, and enhancement of accessory functions.As a result, automobile manufacturers should increase the seat comfort, improve power, enhance the flexibility of shifting such aspects of the whole vehicle handling experience, in addition to improving the lights, keys and other car quality related needs.

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)0.003
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.248 · 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
GenreMethods

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 venueJournal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial ComputingSame topicE-commerce and Technology InnovationsFrench-language works237,207