MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3124532327 · doi:10.22004/ag.econ.7883

Home Bias in U.S. Beer Consumption

2007· preprint· en· W3124532327 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rigoberto A. López, Xenia Matschke

Bibliographic record

VenueAgEcon Search (University of Minnesota, USA) · 2007
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicWine Industry and Tourism
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCooperative State Research, Education, and Extension ServiceUniversity of Connecticut
KeywordsConsumption (sociology)TasteEconomicsAdvertisingDemographic economicsBusinessFood scienceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We apply the Berry, Levinsohn and Pakes (1995) market equilibrium model (BLP) to data from 30 brands of beers sold in 12 U.S. cities over 20 quarters (1988-92) to estimate the consumers' taste for beer characteristics (price, alcohol content, and calories) as well as for the cultural region of origin (USA, Anglo-European, Germanic, and countries bordering the U.S.). Consumer heterogeneity is allowed with respect to age, income and gender. Overall we end up with 7,200 beer brand observations (30x12x20) and 13,920 (58 random draws x 12 x 20) consumer observations. Empirical results indicate that indeed there is home bias with respect to European beers and somewhat less so with respect to beers from bordering countries (Mexico and Canada). Home bias is more accentuated among older males who are more affluent. Furthermore, the own-price elasticities and the cross price elasticities of demand are higher for foreign beers, indicating a higher degree of loyalty and differentiation for domestic beers.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.101
Threshold uncertainty score0.201

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.098
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.167 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAgEcon Search (University of Minnesota, USA)Same topicWine Industry and TourismFrench-language works237,207