MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1872399634 · doi:10.1287/mksc.2015.0926

The Economic Value of Online Reviews

2015· article· en· W1872399634 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMarketing Science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicConsumer Market Behavior and Pricing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCounterfactual thinkingQuality (philosophy)Product (mathematics)Value (mathematics)MarketingVariance (accounting)Set (abstract data type)Reading (process)PopulationComputer scienceAdvertisingBusinessPsychologyMachine learningMathematicsSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper investigates the economic value of online reviews for consumers and restaurants. We use a data set from Dianping.com , a leading Chinese website providing user-generated reviews, to study how consumers learn, from reading online reviews, the quality and cost of restaurant dining. We propose a learning model with three novel features: (1) different reviews offer different informational value to different types of consumers; (2) consumers learn their own preferences, and not the distribution of preferences among the entire population, for multiple product attributes; and (3) consumers update not only the expectation but also the variance of their preferences. Based on estimation results, we conduct a series of counterfactual experiments and find that the value from Dianping is about 7 CNY for each user, and about 8.6 CNY from each user for the reviewed restaurants in this study. The majority of the value comes from reviews on restaurant quality, and contextual comments are more valuable than numerical ratings in reviews.

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.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.653
Threshold uncertainty score0.390

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.245 · 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