Identification and Estimation of Forward-looking Behavior: The Case of Consumer Stockpiling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding how forward-looking consumers respond to price promotions in storable goods markets is an important area of research in empirical marketing and industrial organization. In prior work, researchers have assumed that consumers in these markets are very forward-looking, and calibrated their weekly discount factors to levels around 0.9995. This calibration has been used because earlier research has assumed that a consumer’s storage cost is a continuous func- tion of inventory, which rules out exclusion restrictions that can be used to identify the discount factor. We show that by properly modeling storage cost as a step function of inventory (be- cause storage cost depends on the number of packages stored, instead of the actual amount of inventory), natural exclusion restrictions arise that allow for the discount factor to be point identified. In an application to a storable good category, we find that weekly discount factors are very heterogeneous across consumers, and are on average 0.71. We show through a counter- factual exercise that if one used a model which fixed the discount factor to be consistent with the standard calibrated value, one would overpredict the effect of increased promotional depth for a product on its quantity sold by 18% in the short-term, and 15% in the long-term.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".