MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411618251 · doi:10.51847/plzqnbapxi

10.51847/plzQnBapxI

2000· article· en· W4411618251 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueTime to knit · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCustomer churn and segmentation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProfitability indexArtificial neural networkComputer scienceBusinessArtificial intelligenceFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents how neural networks can be used for the analysis of current and predicting of future individual customer profitability.Based on historical data stored in the data warehouse, neural networks predict individual customer profitability by defining belonging of particular customer to one of predefined customer segments.Neural networks were used as a tool for analyzing and predicting customer profitability because of their ability to learn from historical data and to make a valid generalization.Since one of the main features of neural networks is their possibility to work with nonlinear and nonfinancial data, it makes them an appropriate tool for predicting individual customer profitability.A presented use of neural networks in predicting individual customer profitability was tested using empirical data from a production company which operates in the Southeast European market.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.909
Threshold uncertainty score0.375

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.9920.993

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.179
Teacher spread0.171 · 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