An approach for clustering consumers by their top‐box and top‐choice responses
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 Cluster analysis is often used to group consumers based on their hedonic responses to products. We give a motivating example in which conventional cluster analyses converge on a solution where consumers do not agree on which products they like. We show why this occurs. We state a goal: to group together consumers who have a shared opinion of which products are delightful and which products are not delightful, apart from consumers who have a different opinion. To meet this goal, we code consumers' hedonic responses in ways inspired by top‐ k box analysis, then cluster consumers using b‐cluster analysis. For comparison, we cluster consumers using two conventional methods. We interpret each cluster by focusing on which product(s) the cluster accepts and whether a large proportion of cluster members are aligned in accepting these products. Solutions from b‐cluster analysis based on top‐ k box‐inspired codings met our goal better than conventional approaches, indicating that these methods deserve further study. Practical Applications Cluster analysis outcomes are profoundly shaped by a researcher's decisions related to response coding and clustering algorithm. This paper highlights the importance of determining the goal of the cluster analysis first, then selecting a response coding and clustering algorithm to best meet this goal. Our stated goal is one that is frequently of interest in sensory evaluation but is not well met by conventional clustering approaches. The novel approaches that we give in this paper meet the goal and are available using software that is freely available in the public domain.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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