MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2736778087 · doi:10.1017/age.2017.21

Consumer Preferences for Oyster Attributes: Field Experiments on Brand, Locality, and Growing Method

2017· article· en· W2736778087 on OpenAlexaff
Maik Kecinski, Kent D. Messer, Lauren Knapp, Yosef Shirazi

Bibliographic record

VenueAgricultural and Resource Economics Review · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic and Environmental Valuation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersOffice of Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive ResearchU.S. Department of AgricultureNational Science Foundation
KeywordsOysterAquacultureFisheryPreferenceBusinessProduction (economics)MarketingFish <Actinopterygii>BiologyEconomicsMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Oyster aquaculture has experienced tremendous growth in the United States over the past decade, but little is known about consumer preferences for oysters. This study analyzed preferences for oysters with varied combinations of brands, production locations, and production methods (aquaculture vs. wild-caught) using dichotomous choice, revealed preference economic field experiments. Results suggest significant and distinct differences in behavior between first-time and regular oyster consumers. While infrequent oyster consumers were drawn to oysters labeled as wild-caught, experienced oyster consumers preferred oysters raised via aquaculture. These findings will be valuable for growers and policymakers who invest in aquaculture to improve surrounding ecosystems.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.511
Threshold uncertainty score0.570

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.173
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.120 · 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

Citations43
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAgricultural and Resource Economics ReviewSame topicEconomic and Environmental ValuationFrench-language works237,207