Bibliographic record
Abstract
In an era of information overload and increasingly fierce market competition, brand building has become the core driving force for companies to capture consumers attention. This paper explores brand symbolism, packaging aesthetics, and moral and emotional values as its three main research themes. First, through the semiotic interpretation of brand naming, logo design and slogan language, it reveals how it works on consumer cognitive system and enhances brand recognition and emotional connection; second, it focuses on the aesthetics of packaging and discusses the stimulation mechanism of the visual experience on impulsive consumption and individual identity; and third, it combines the emotional narrative and brand moral marketing strategy to demonstrate the social function of brand as a carrier of cultural and ethical values. In terms of research methodology, this paper integrates the literature review and selects typical cases such as Pop Mart, Coca-Cola, and Adopt a Cow for analysis. The results show that the synergistic application of brand symbolism and packaging, as well as the continuous practice of ethical values, can significantly enhance buyer love and loyalty to the brand. The study concludes that brand success no longer relies on a single communication technique, but needs to incorporate multiple dimensions, such as visual, verbal, emotional, and cultural, in order to build multi-level cognitive and perceptual connections.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".