MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7117153341 · doi:10.55041/isjem05303

A Study on the Impact of Pricing on Cosmetic Products among Generation Z with special Reference to Faces Canada

2025· article· W7117153341 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
T. Hemalatha, Vasuki R

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Scientific Journal of Engineering and Management · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicConsumer Behavior in Brand Consumption and Identification
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPurchasingLikert scalePricing strategiesData collectionAffect (linguistics)Key (lock)ClothingCosmetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

I. ABSTRACT Due to shifting consumer tastes, growing brand recognition, and the growing impact of digital media, the cosmetics sector has grown rapidly in recent years. Pricing is one of the key components of the marketing mix that influences customer purchasing decisions, especially for Generation Z, who are very value-oriented and price-conscious. The purpose of this study is to investigate how Generation Z is affected by the cost of cosmetics, with a focus on Faces Canada. The study focuses on the impact of important pricing factors on purchase intention, including affordability, price worthiness, price–quality balance, and promotional pricing. A standardized questionnaire based on a five-point Likert scale is used to gather primary data from Gen Z consumers using a descriptive research design. The data is analyzed using statistical techniques such chi-square analysis, mean score ranking, and percentage analysis. The study's conclusions could shed light on how price tactics affect Gen Z consumers' purchasing decisions and assist cosmetic companies, including Faces Canada, in creating sensible pricing strategies. By providing brand-specific insights into pricing and customer behavior in the Indian cosmetic sector, the study adds to the body of scholarly knowledge. Key Words – GenZ, Cosmetics, Faces Canada, Pricing

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.840
Threshold uncertainty score0.775

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.232 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Scientific Journal of Engineering and ManagementSame topicConsumer Behavior in Brand Consumption and IdentificationFrench-language works237,207