Perceived risk: an experimental investigation of consumer behavior when buying wine
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 The purpose of this paper is to investigate differences in expressed attitude as a function of the manner in which information on perceived risk is communicated. The experiments are conducted through a choice‐based questionnaire to reflect the consumer‐oriented decision of the purchase of a bottle of wine based on posted prices. The experiments reported in this paper are based on questionnaires distributed to 323 participants in multiple samples and examine the behavior of people when faced with different information on the probability of loss. The present study demonstrates that changes in the manner in which information is presented, without any underlying change in problem structure, affects observed preferences when buying wine. The impact of perceived risk and character on the willingness to buy and to pay for a bottle is analyzed and show that price habits and perceived risk are the main factors affecting the willingness to pay for a bottle of wine. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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