MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2409760410 · doi:10.6000/1929-7092.2016.05.17

Modeling the Main Determinants of Movie Sales: An Econometric Study of Chinese Marketplace

2016· article· en· W2409760410 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Fan Feng, Ravi Sharma

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Reviews on Global Economics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCinema and Media Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconometric modelEconometric analysisEconometricsEconomicsBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper investigates the financial performance of movies in China, a fast-growing commercial exhibition marketplace. Movie sales and Chinese market returns, movie characteristics and cultural contexts are operationalized in ordinary least squares (OLS) regression and quantile regression models to explain the highly varied acceptance across different products released since 2009. The samples comprise most of the widely released motion pictures in China. We posit that production budgets, sequels, audience ratings, cultural contexts and movie genres can significantly account for the variation in box office (BO) revenue and sales-revenue-to-cost (SRTC) within the Chinese market. Movies produced in countries with similar cultural contexts capture more audiences measured by box office proceeds, but it is noteworthy that SRTC falls at a decreasing rate as cultural differences increase. An increase in production budget generates more sales in China, but reduces the SRTC ratios with other factors controlled. Although aggregate cinema attendance may fluctuate with releasing date, this is not always true for an individual movie's financial success. Quantile regressions provide us with a richer characterization of the relationship, enabling us to analyze the entire distribution of box office proceeds and SRTC ratios, as well as their determinants at key quantiles.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.209
Threshold uncertainty score0.573

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Reviews on Global EconomicsSame topicCinema and Media StudiesFrench-language works237,207