MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1985634039 · doi:10.1002/cb.349

Differences in consumer preferences when facing branded versus non‐branded choices

2011· article· en· W1985634039 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

VenueJournal of Consumer Behaviour · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic and Environmental Valuation
Canadian institutionsGovernment of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCredenceReputationBusinessAdvertisingCertificationConsistency (knowledge bases)Product (mathematics)MarketingCredence goodQuality (philosophy)Willingness to payEconomicsInformation asymmetryMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Because brands can signal reputation and serve as proxies for trust, consumer preferences for credence attributes may differ for branded and non‐branded products. We test this hypothesis using data from a choice experiment conducted with US pork consumers. The results indicate that consumers are usually willing to pay more for a certification attribute in a non‐branded as compared to branded product. Additionally, greater variation in consumer willingness‐to‐pay for credence attributes is observed in the non‐branded case. This latter characteristic of the results may represent the increased uncertainty some consumers internalize concerning quality consistency when brand information is not provided. These results have interesting implications for producers, processors, retailers, and policy makers. Copyright © 2011 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.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.217
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.032 · 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