Assortment Size and Option Attractiveness in Consumer Choice among Retailers
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An important decision that retailers make involves selecting the number of items constituting their assortments. A key issue in making these decisions is the role of assortment size in determining consumers’ choice of a retailer. The authors address this issue by investigating how consumer choice among retailers offering various-sized assortments is influenced by the attractiveness of the options constituting these assortments. The data show that consumer preference for retailers offering larger assortments tends to decrease as the attractiveness of the options in their assortments increases and can even lead to a reversal of preferences in favor of retailers offering smaller assortments. This research further presents evidence that the relationship between assortment size and option attractiveness is concave, such that the marginal impact of assortment size on choice decreases as the attractiveness of the options increases. Data from eight empirical studies offer converging evidence in support of the theoretical predictions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it