Brand Anthropomorphism: A Bibliometric Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, the concept of anthropomorphism—attributing human qualities to non-human agents—has attracted considerable attention from academics and practitioners. Despite the growing number of studies, research on anthropomorphism in the branding context is relatively fragmented, with little effort to evaluate current trends or consolidate existing knowledge. This paper aims to provide a holistic overview of brand anthropomorphism by employing co-citation and bibliographic coupling analysis on 368 research articles retrieved from the Web of Science between 1994 and June 2023. The co-citation findings revealed three prior research streams of brand anthropomorphism, constituting existing knowledge-building in the given research area. The results of the bibliographic coupling analysis further unveiled six current clusters of the study domain. The comparison of co-citation and bibliographic coupling themes contributed to the detection of emerging trends in the selected field, the identification of research gaps, and the suggestion of future explorations. This paper promises to offer valuable insights that will provide both theoretical contributions and practical implications for marketers seeking to enhance the effectiveness of their branding messages.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.363 | 0.500 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.004 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".