Does Vintners Quality Alliance (VQA) certification benefit winemakers in British Columbia (BC), Canada?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This paper aims to analyze the significance of British Columbia Vintners Quality Alliance (BC VQA) certification that constitutes BC’s wine appellation and its influence on wine prices, the volume of wine sales and winemakers’ revenues. Design/methodology/approach A three-stage endogenous dummy variable specification that addresses the endogeneity of the VQA certification is used. The data used in this research come from the BC liquor distribution branch, and it is composed of a monthly scanner wholesales data of all wines sold by the BC estate wineries located in the Okanagan and Similkameen Valleys of BC in 2011-2015. Findings The obtained results suggest that VQA certification has a positive and marginally significant effect on the average volume of sales of BC produced wines, but it seems not to influence the average wine prices and the average revenue share. The results imply then that VQA certification allows rent dissipation via over-certification, which, in turn, allows arbitraging away of producers’ rents. Originality/value The research constitutes the first attempt of the use of three-stage endogenous dummy variable modeling approach to correct for the endogeneity of the VQA certification in BC. The analysis is essential for BC winemakers as it can inform them about the current role of the VQA certification in BC. This knowledge is especially important now when the BC wine region is developing its collective, regional reputation and is in the process of introduction of new appellations and sub-appellations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".