MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3123680844 · doi:10.1287/mksc.2014.0900

Product and Pricing Decisions in Crowdfunding

2015· article· en· W3123680844 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMarketing Science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFinTech, Crowdfunding, Digital Finance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProduct (mathematics)Product lineQuality (philosophy)BusinessMarketingMechanism (biology)Pricing strategiesDynamic pricingMicroeconomicsNew product developmentIndustrial organizationEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper studies the optimal product and pricing decisions in a crowdfunding mechanism by which a project between a creator and many buyers will be realized only if the total funds committed by the buyers reach a specified goal. When the buyers are sufficiently heterogeneous in their product valuations, the creator should offer a line of products with different levels of product quality. Compared to the traditional situation where orders are placed and fulfilled individually, with the crowdfunding mechanism, a product line is more likely than a single product to be optimal and the quality gap between products is smaller. This paper also shows the effect of the crowdfunding mechanism on pricing dynamics over time. Together, these results underscore the substantial influence of the emerging crowdfunding mechanisms on common marketing decisions.

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.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.104
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.221 · 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