MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2800738283 · doi:10.1287/orsc.2017.1194

Optimal Distinctiveness in the Console Video Game Industry: An Exemplar-Based Model of Proto-Category Evolution

2018· article· en· W2800738283 on OpenAlexaff
Eric Yanfei Zhao, Masakazu Ishihara, P. Devereaux Jennings, Michael Lounsbury

Bibliographic record

VenueOrganization Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicExperimental Behavioral Economics Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOptimal distinctiveness theoryCategorizationSalientConformityExplanatory powerProduct categoryVideo gameAffect (linguistics)Computer scienceCognitive psychologyMarketingPsychologyBusinessSocial psychologyProduct (mathematics)Artificial intelligenceEpistemologyCommunicationMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we develop an exemplar-based model of the emergence and evolution of proto-categories—new groupings of products that are only weakly entrenched but have the potential to become widely institutionalized—and examine how different positioning strategies of new entrants vis-à-vis the exemplar of a proto-category affect entrant performance. Empirically, we study the U.S. console video game industry where proto-categories frequently emerge and evolve around exemplary hit games. Analyzing a proprietary database of 6,544 games comprising 78 such proto-categories, we find that, in the early stages of proto-category emergence, conformity with the exemplar’s features is positively associated with new entrants’ sales. As a proto-category evolves, a moderate level of differentiation becomes important for enhancing sales. We also find that this temporal dynamic is driven by the changing competitive intensity in the proto-category and strongly mediated by critics’ reviews. Moreover, the mediating effect of critics’ reviews on entrant sales becomes increasingly salient with the evolution of a proto-category. Finally, we show that accounting for the influence of emerging prototypes does not diminish the explanatory power of the exemplar model we propose. We conclude the paper by discussing the implications of our findings for research on categorization and optimal distinctiveness.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations165
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOrganization ScienceSame topicExperimental Behavioral Economics StudiesFrench-language works237,207