MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410697190 · doi:10.1142/s0218348x25300065

THE APPLICATION OF FRACTAL THEORY IN MARKETING: WHAT CAN WE DO?

2025· article· en· W4410697190 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueFractals · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicComplex Systems and Time Series Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity Canada West
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFractalMathematicsStatistical physicsComputer scienceMarketingBusinessPhysicsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fractal theory has emerged as a powerful mathematical tool for analyzing complex, nonlinear, and self-similar patterns across various business and engineering domains. This review explores the role of fractals in enhancing decision-making and predictive capabilities within five key application areas: consumer segmentation, demand forecasting, inventory optimization, financial market prediction, and logistics and distribution planning. We highlight how fractal-based methods — such as fractal dimension, multifractal analysis, and entropy measures — can be integrated with machine learning to improve pattern recognition, uncertainty quantification, and system adaptability. Specific attention is given to explainability, data granularity, and the synergy between fractal modeling and AI frameworks. Key challenges and limitations, including model interpretability and computational complexity, are also discussed, along with future research directions aimed at making fractal analytics more actionable in business environments.

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.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.581
Threshold uncertainty score0.298

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.211 · 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