MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3123359921 · doi:10.1504/ijemr.2011.039894

Snipe bidding behaviour in eBay auctions

2011· article· en· W3123359921 on OpenAlexaff
Füsun F. Gönül, Peter T. L. Popkowski Leszczyc

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Electronic Marketing and Retailing · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicAuction Theory and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiddingCommon value auctionEconomicsMicroeconomicsBusinessMarketingAdvertising

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Our research investigates what factors make snipe bidding more likely, whether sniping pays, and how an auction can be designed to minimise sniping. We estimate sniping probability in eBay auctions using multivariate models to examine novel datasets compiled from auctions of the Norelco electric razor and the Sony PlayStation2. Our main results reveal that the winner of an auction is more likely to be a snipe bidder and that a lower ending price increases the likelihood that the winner of an auction is a snipe bidder; everything else held constant. We find that experienced bidders are more likely to engage in sniping behaviour. In addition, we find that an auction designer or a seller can discourage snipe bidding by setting a longer duration and/or a lower (or no) reserve price.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.393
Threshold uncertainty score0.453

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.299 · 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

Citations7
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Electronic Marketing and RetailingSame topicAuction Theory and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207