MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1936248380 · doi:10.1002/mde.2696

Non‐Neutral and Asymmetric Effects of Neutral Ratings: Evidence From eBay

2014· article· en· W1936248380 on OpenAlexaff
Faisal Rabby, Quazi Shahriar

Bibliographic record

VenueManagerial and Decision Economics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicAuction Theory and Applications
Canadian institutionsChamplain Regional CollegeConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsValue (mathematics)sortAdverse selectionRevenueRisk neutralBusinessAdvertisingMicroeconomicsEconomicsStatisticsComputer scienceMathematicsDatabaseAccounting

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Seller ratings help overcome adverse selection problems in online transactions between strangers. Using eBay data, we find that auction outcomes are sensitive toward not only positive and negative seller ratings but also neutral ratings. We find that (1) buyers utilize neutral ratings to sort among otherwise identical sellers and value their products and (2) contrary to eBay's opinion, depending on whether a seller is top‐notch or not, neutral ratings can be detrimental or beneficial; for sellers with higher proportions of positive ratings, an increase in neutral ratings decreases sales. For sellers with higher proportion of negative ratings, an increase in neutral ratings increases both sales and revenue. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.943
Threshold uncertainty score0.450

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations5
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueManagerial and Decision EconomicsSame topicAuction Theory and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207