MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2790260509 · doi:10.1515/jafio-2017-0019

Non-Linear Demand in a Linear Town

2018· article· en· W2790260509 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammad Torshizi, Murray Fulton, Richard Gray

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicConsumer Market Behavior and Pricing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversity of Alberta
FundersUniversity of Sussex
KeywordsEconomicsProduct differentiationMisrepresentationMicroeconomicsEconometricsRanking (information retrieval)Product (mathematics)Competition (biology)Simple (philosophy)Elasticity (physics)Price elasticity of demandMathematical economicsMathematicsComputer scienceCournot competition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In Hotelling’s linear town model characteristics are implicitly assumed to be related in such a way that preferences for them can be mapped into a one-dimensional town. This results in perfectly correlated willingness to pay levels. Many differentiated products, however, embody characteristics that are functionally at least somewhat unrelated to other characteristics. This paper makes the implicit assumption of perfectly correlated preferences in the original Hotelling model explicit, and examine the implications of this assumption for the economics of competition. We develop a simple theoretical model to show that shape of the demand curve for differentiated products depends on distribution of consumers’ preferences, which is determined by the nature of the relationship between the corresponding characteristics. Misrepresentation of correlated preferences in differentiated product models impacts demand elasticity and can result in unreliable outcomes. This issue is particularly important in agricultural and food markets where many factors such as expectations about weather and information on social media can impact consumer ranking of one product versus another in ways that are not fully observable or measurable by the researcher.

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)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.431

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural & Food Industrial OrganizationSame topicConsumer Market Behavior and PricingFrench-language works237,207