MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412127868 · doi:10.64251/ijmmi.22

The Effects of Pros and Cons of Applying Big Data Analytics to Enhance Consumers' Responses

2024· article· en· W4412127868 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

VenueInternational Journal of Management and Marketing Intelligence · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTechnology and Data Analysis
Canadian institutionsYorkville University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsconsBig dataAnalyticsData scienceComputer scienceBusinessData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When it concerns to the pros and cons of big data analytics, the recent discussion in Information Technology topic (IT) has been all about big data use in the business. The benefits of big data can support and assist the enterprises in streamlining their processes, improving efficiency, and saving costs. With the improvement of IT, more volumes of data are flowing into modern organizations. Data is now becoming larger and further complex as a result of the ongoing accumulation of information from several devices and platforms such as smartphones, personal computers, government documents, as well social networks. Most of the businesses in developed countries have embraced the emerging Big Data Analytics (BDA) paradigm which has increased the motivation of researchers and business professionals in a way to evaluate its ramifications for company objectives and challenges. However, there is a lack of research study that broadens the limited understanding the customer’s perceptions and attitudes toward applications of big data analytics. The main goal of this study is to address the pros and cons of adopting BDA as it pertains to how customers behave in an e-commerce context.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.977
Threshold uncertainty score0.245

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
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 science0.0010.001
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.293 · 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