MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2339877656 · doi:10.1504/ijrm.2015.073818

Do retailers set optimal prices in the case of the retail gasoline market?

2015· article· en· W2339877656 on OpenAlex
Daero Kim, Matt Davison, Fredrik Ødegaard

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

VenueInternational Journal of Revenue Management · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicConsumer Market Behavior and Pricing
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGasolineOligopolyCommodityCompetitor analysisEconomicsPanel dataMicroeconomicsSet (abstract data type)BusinessFinancial economicsEconometricsMarketingMarket economy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

How should gasoline retailers respond to other competing retailers and to changes in commodity gasoline prices to set their own prices over time? This question opens the door to an important discussion on price-setting strategies in the retail gasoline market. Retail gasoline price data, both panel and time series, is of great interest in the economic arena since it allows the testing of many theories about price formation, oligopolistic pricing, and consumer search. In this study, we present results from a unique new dataset, including daily sales, cost, and price data from 100 retail gasoline stations in a western European country. With this data, we empirically test various economic models to confirm, in full or in part, some earlier results based on North American data. We discuss a special case in which we empirically fit a model where retailers set prices partly in response to local competitors' prices.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.572
Threshold uncertainty score0.244

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.244 · 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