MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2099487375 · doi:10.1002/agr.20012

Australian wines in the British wine market: A hedonic price analysis

2004· article· en· W2099487375 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

VenueAgribusiness · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicWine Industry and Tourism
Canadian institutionsAgriculture Food and Rural DevelopmentUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWineValuation (finance)AgribusinessMarketingRevenueBusinessHedonic pricingMarket shareEconomicsRetail marketAdvertisingAgricultureGeographyEconometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The market share of New World wines sold in many European countries has increased dramatically over the past decade. More aggressive marketing, together with a more distinct and recognizable labeling scheme, are often regarded as the keys to the marketing success of these new wines. This article employs hedonic price analysis to identify the values that marketers and consumers place on the information carried by the label of Australian wines in the British wine retail market. Although many grape varieties are given a highly distinct valuation by market participants, our results also suggest that consumers consider regions jointly with grape varieties as proxies for brands. This contrasts with the general observation that grape varietal labeling is the distinctive feature of New World wines. Marketing implications are examined by considering the revenue impact of changes in labeling at the retail level. [JEL citations: L150, D12, C21.] © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Agribusiness 20: 287–307, 2004.

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 categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.420
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.202 · 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