Influence of Wine Education on Wine Hedonic and Confidence Ratings by Millennial Wine Consumers of Different Ethnicities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Consumer wine preferences are not well understood. Anecdotally it is believed that preferences evolve over time, from sweet whites to full-bodied reds, as consumers become more experienced and familiar with wine. However, little is known about the change in wine preference or confidence with education and training. This research explored changes in consumers’ hedonic and confidence ratings for five commercial British Columbian (BC) wines (Ehrenfelser, Chardonnay, rosé, Pinot noir, Cabernet-Merlot) over a 12-week education/training period. Consumers (n = 133) completed a wine survey and evaluated the wines during the first and twelfth week of a university wine course, consisting of wine education and sensory training. Consumers provided hedonic (degree-of-liking) and confidence (degree-of-sureness) ratings for the visual, aroma and flavor characteristics of the wines, on 9-point and 5-point scales, respectively, before and after the 12-week wine course. Consumers were classified by gender (female, male), age and ethnicity. Kruskal Wallis, Mann-Whitney, Friedman, Wilcoxon Signed Rank and Chi-square tests and Spearman correlation coefficients were used to explore the effects of education/training on hedonic and confidence ratings. In general, consumers’ hedonic (visual, aroma, flavor) ratings increased significantly with education/training for the white and rosé wines (Ehrenfelser, Chardonnay, rosé) over the 12-week period. In contrast, consumer confidence increased substantially for all wine types. Surveys revealed, for the three largest subgroups of consumers (North American (NA), n = 38; European (EU), n = 31; Asian, n = 54), that NA and EU consumers had significantly higher frequency-of-purchase, frequency-of-purchase of Canadian wine, frequency-of-consumption and self-rated wine knowledge than Asian consumers. However, Asian consumers were willing to pay more for a bottle of wine compared to NA and EU consumers. This research provided insight into the millennial consumers and explored the nature and magnitude of changes in hedonic and confidence ratings with wine education/training.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".