MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W277123893

Pressing Washington's Wine Industry into the Twenty-First Century: Rethinking What It Means to Be a Winery

2012· article· en· W277123893 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rebecca S. Thompson

Bibliographic record

VenueWashington law review · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicHorticultural and Viticultural Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWineryWineWinemakingBusinessLegislationCraftProduct (mathematics)StatuteAdvertisingCommerceMarketingLawPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: Washington's wine industry is growing, and the ways in which Washington winemakers craft and sell their product are changing. Traditional brick and mortar coexist with so-called which typically purchase grapes from growers and contract with other or custom crush facilities to access winemaking equipment. The virtual winery is an incubator model and contributes to the rich diversity of Washington's wine industry. Washington's current winery licensing statute, RCW 66.24.170, does not clearly apply to virtual because it links the concept of a winery with a particular physical location and fails to delineate exactly what types of winemaking activities licensees must engage in. This statutory ambiguity causes confusion for winemakers and regulators. House Bill 1641, introduced in January 2011, seeks to remedy the confusion by dividing the current winery licensing statute into two classes: one for traditional wineries, and one for virtual wineries. The latter would be licensed not as producers of wine but as retailers. While well-intentioned, House Bill 1641 could negatively impact Washington's wine industry by limiting virtual wineries' access to consumers via interstate direct shipment. Unlike licensed wine producers, wine retailers presently lack Commerce Clause protection from state laws discriminating against direct shipment of out-of-state wine. Thus, this Comment argues that Washington should follow the example of Oregon and enact legislation amending RCW 66.24. 170 to clearly license virtual as producers.INTRODUCTIONLike fights about most regulation, those about wine rules are about economic interests. And, as in fights about most product regulation, the overlooked constituencies are consumers and mom-and-pop businesses.1Washington is home to a robust and growing wine industry. In 2010, Washington grape growers produced 160,000 tons of more than thirty wine grape varietale, a record high.2 These 160,000 tons of grapes yielded approximately twelve million cases of wine.3 According to the Washington Wine Commission, the total statewide economic impact of Washington's wine industry is $3 billion.4 The Washington wine industry has undoubtedly come a long way since its humble origins at Fort Vancouver in 1825.5 The coming of age of Washington's wine industry manifests itself not only in sheer numbers but also in the changing ways that Washington winemakers craft, market, and deliver their product to consumers.Many people may associate winemaking with a villa or château set against a hillside lined with row upon row of lush vines, a barn or cellar housing stacked barrels of aging wine, and an on-site tasting room. While this traditional or brick and mortar model still exists in Washington today, it is not the only model. Of the total 120,000 tons of Washington grapes crushed in 2006, only 35,275 were estate grown - the rest were either purchased or custom crushed.6 These figures indicate that not all Washington winemakers grow and crush the grapes they produce. Rather, some winemakers purchase grapes from growers and crush them at their own facility.7 So-called wineries purchase grapes and arrange to have them crushed at someone else's facility.8 The latter production model has gained recent popularity among Washington's smaller, start-up wine operations.9The rapid growth in the American wine industry over the past four decades10 has sparked increased competition, prompting to develop new methods of reaching and retaining consumers.11 According to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), American wine consumers increasingly desire individualistic, hand-crafted wines.12 The FTC links this shift in consumer preferences with the emergence of more and more small wineries.13 However, small, start-up face greater difficulty finding distributors than do their established, large-scale counterparts.14 As a result, many small rely in part on direct-toconsumer sales, including through internet-based wine clubs and other forms of e-commerce. …

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.831
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.310
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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

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

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWashington law reviewSame topicHorticultural and Viticultural ResearchFrench-language works237,207