MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413279625 · doi:10.7202/1118803ar

Importance of Informal Skills for Sporting Goods Retailers in the Service Relationship

2024· article· en· W4413279625 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lilian Pichot, Julien Pierre

Bibliographic record

VenueRelations industrielles · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicConsumer Retail Behavior Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessService (business)MarketingAdvertisingCommerce

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We discuss the everyday work of sporting goods salespeople in France, stressing the importance of informal and relational skills in the service relationship, which draws on the seller and buyer’s shared interest in sports. Salespeople do far more than just perform predefined tasks. Their effectiveness depends largely on being able to develop personal relationships with customers. We collected quantitative and qualitative data through four methods: 1) a questionnaire sent in 2019 to all sports and recreational retail managers in the Grand Est region of France (n=61); 2) an analysis of job listings posted in the press, online and in stores in 2019 and 2020 (n=152), which we used to draw up a list of skills and qualifications for the advertised positions; 3) semi-structured interviews with salespeople and store managers (n=20) on their everyday work, their relationships to sporting goods and their perceptions of customer relationships; and 4) ethnographic observation of everyday sales work in ten stores (January-February 2020). In service work, a sense of selflessness is valued, as reflected in the practice of adaptive selling. Salespeople develop a sense of the customers’ lifestyle and approach to sports and create verbal, cognitive and emotional closeness. The personal relationships that develop through such adjustments ultimately facilitate sales transactions, whose meaning is socially constructed by both parties.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.404

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.233 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRelations industriellesSame topicConsumer Retail Behavior StudiesFrench-language works237,207