MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393242170 · doi:10.54097/hbem.v21i.14842

CHAGEE’s Brand Development and Business Strategies

2023· article· en· W4393242170 on OpenAlexaff
Keliang Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueHighlights in Business Economics and Management · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicCulinary Culture and Tourism
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessBusiness developmentProcess managementMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Milk tea, a popular beverage in numerous regions worldwide, constitutes a dynamic and fast-growing segment of the global beverage industry, with a strong presence in Asia, especially in China. Consuming milk tea has now become a new form of social interaction for young people, and the milk tea industry has evolved from the 1.0 era to the 3.0 era. With a more competitive market environment, most milk tea businesses struggle to survive. However, CHAGEE is one of the few brands that stand out and is growing against trends. CHAGEE is a brand originating from Yunnan, that took the essence of Chinese tea culture, and its goal is to become the oriental Starbucks. With that being said, CHAGEE is expanding aggressively, and it has now opened more than 2300stores worldwide. This paper analyzes how CHAGEE became a ‘Dark Horse’ within the competitive industry through the introduction of the milk tea era evolution, generation Z’s consuming behaviours, CHAGEE’s business strategies such as ‘flagship product’ strategy, and social media marketing, the milk tea industry in the global market and finally a SWOT analysis of CHAGEE.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.176 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHighlights in Business Economics and ManagementSame topicCulinary Culture and TourismFrench-language works237,207