MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7098611424

Tailoring new websites to appeal to those most likely to shop online

2014· article· en· W7098611424 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBryophyte Studies and Records
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreferenceAppealThe InternetAttractivenessSample (material)Website designInternet shoppingAttraction
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study extends the conventional wisdom concerning how a commercial website can be configured to attract online shoppers, and specifically, initial shoppers. Based on past research [Inform. Syst. Res. 13 (2002) 187] and theory [Diffusion of Innovations (1995)], a number of ‘form ’ and ‘substantive ’ website features were assessed as to their attractiveness to consumers of varying (a) Internet experience and (b) innovativeness. A self-administered survey was completed by a convenience sample of 363 residents of the US and Canada. A discriminant analysis confirms that two functions, generally representing form and substantive features, each discriminate between (a) high and low innovativeness (DF1) and (b) high and low Internet experience (DF2). Further, those with more Internet experience show a stronger preference for substantive features than do those with less experience. But high and low experience groups do not differ noticeably with regard to preference for form features. It was also found that, conversely, the more innovative shoppers reveal a stronger preference for form features. But high and low innovativeness groups do not differ appreciably in respect to desire for substantive features. This suggests the dynamics underlying the attraction of initial Internet users to particular shopping sites. Both theoretical and practical implications of the findings are discussed.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.697
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.217 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBryophyte Studies and RecordsFrench-language works237,207