MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2772866280 · doi:10.1509/jmr.16.0235

The Club Store Effect: Impact of Shopping in Warehouse Club Stores on Consumers' Packaged Food Purchases

2017· article· en· W2772866280 on OpenAlexaff
Kusum L. Ailawadi, Yu Ma, Dhruv Grewal

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Marketing Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicConsumer Retail Behavior Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClubBusinessPer capitaMarketingWarehouseAdvertisingNutrition informationQuality (philosophy)Food science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article studies the impact of shopping at the warehouse club format on households' purchases of packaged food for the home. In addition to low prices, this format has several unique characteristics that can influence packaged food purchases. The empirical analysis uses a combination of households' longitudinal grocery purchase information, rich survey data, and detailed item-level nutrition information. After accounting for selection on observables and unobservables, the authors find a substantial increase in the total quantity (servings per capita) of packaged food purchases attributable to shopping at this format. Because there is no effect on the nutritional quality of purchases, this translates into a substantial increase in calories, sugar, and saturated fat per capita. The increase comes primarily from storable and impulse foods, and it is drawn equally from foods that have positive and negative health halos. The results have important implications for how marketers can create win–win opportunities for themselves and for consumers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.084

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0250.001

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 head0.099
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.309 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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 venueJournal of Marketing ResearchSame topicConsumer Retail Behavior StudiesFrench-language works237,207