A competitive marketplace or an unfair competitor? An analysis of Amazon and its best sellers ranks
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract To assess the performance of third‐party sellers relative to Amazon, this study estimates the effect of different sales strategies on Amazon's reported best sellers rank (BSR) of ground coffee in the USA and Canada and red wine in the United Kingdom using a fixed‐effects model. The products are either ‘sold and shipped by Amazon’ (Amazon), ‘sold by the third‐party seller and fulfilled by Amazon’ (FBA), or ‘sold and fulfilled by a third‐party merchant’ (FBM). For each of the grocery products and in all empirical specifications, FBM increases the BSR, reducing the relative sales performance of the product in its category. Specifically, FBM increases the BSR of grocery products by 60% relative to Amazon whereas the effect of FBA on BSR is mostly indistinguishable from the effect of Amazon on BSR. These results suggest that Amazon and FBA mostly perform equivalently, but both sales strategies outperform FBM. However, whether the relatively poor performance of the third‐party (FBM) shippers and sellers is due to unfair competition by Amazon remains an open question.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it