Television Advertising and Beef Demand: Bayesian Inference in a Random Effects Tobit Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A number of recent empirical studies have generated skepticism about the effectiveness of generic advertising for beef. One of these studies, Jensen and Schroeter (1992), examines data collected from a panel of households in a carefully designed experimental test of television advertising. The present paper undertakes a reexamination of the Jensen and Schroeter data with two significant improvements in method. First, the analysis disaggregates beef purchases into three product types (ground beef steaks and roasts) and assesses advertising's impact on the demand for each type separately. Second, the present analysis uses an improved econometric method: Bayesian inference in a random effects Tobit model. Inference is based on simulations of a posterior distribution using Gibbs sampling and data augmentation. As far as advertising's effects are concerned, the results of this analysis reaffirm the Jensen and Schroeter finding: The experimental television advertising campaign was not effective in increasing household purchases of beef. Plusieurs études empiriques récentes ont soulevé le doute quant à l'efficacité de la publicité générique sur le bœuf. Celle de Jensen et Schroeder (JS), notamment, portait sur les données recueillies auprès d'un groupe de ménages dans le cadre d'une expérience bien conçue sur la publicitéà la télévision. Les auteurs réexaminent les données de cette étude en apportant deux améliorations majeures à la méthode utilisée. En premier lieu, leur analyse désagrège les achats de bœuf en trois (viande hachée, biftecks et rôtis) et évalue l'impact de la publicité sur la demande de chaque produit. Deuxièmement, l'analyse repose sur une meilleure méthode économétrique, à savoir l'inférence bayésienne dans un modèle Tobit à effets aléatoires. L'inférence s'appuie sur la simulation d'une distribution postérieure par échantillonnage de Gibb et enrichissement des données. En ce qui concerne l'incidence de la publicité, cette nouvelle analyse confirme les constatations de l'etude JS, soit que la campagne expérimental de publicitéà la télévision n'entraîne pas une hausse des achats de bœuf par les ménages.
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 | 0.017 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".