Online Intermediary as a Channel for Selling Quality‐Differentiated Services
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
ABSTRACT When deciding whether to utilize an online intermediary in addition to their own distribution channels, quality differentiated service providers face the trade‐off between the benefit of extended reach and the threat of increased competition. Using an analytical framework, we analyze when and how service providers may utilize an online intermediary to their advantage in the presence of advance selling (i.e., selling a service at an early date for future consumption). In general, when an online intermediary is used, the competition effect dominates the reach effect and leads to a falling price trend. Interestingly, we find that the negative effect of increased competition on profits, due to intermediary usage, can be reversed by committing to self‐imposed participation limits (i.e., selling only a predetermined amount of services through the online intermediary). This ensures that the service provider is better off selling through both its own site and the online intermediary, rather than selling exclusively using either channel.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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