Mass and Niche Service Competition With Heterogeneous Customers and Waiting Line
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT We consider a duopoly service market with a mass service provider (SP) and a niche service provider (SP). Customers receive a deterministic reward from the mass service provided by SP. However, customers have different tastes on the niche service provided by SP. We explore four scenarios based on the SPs' ownership, namely, both are public, both are private, SP is public while SP is private (named scenario MS), and SP is private while SP is public (named scenario NS). The public SP aims for welfare maximization, whereas the private SP is profit seeking. We compare these scenarios and find 1) the social welfare obtained with two public SPs is equivalent to the maximal social welfare achieved by a centralized system, and the welfare obtained with two private SPs is smallest; 2) when the market size exceeds a certain threshold, scenario NS can achieve the centralized maximal social welfare; 3) when the market size is below this threshold, both scenario MS and NS can achieve the centralized maximal social welfare, and customer welfare in scenario MS is higher than that in scenario NS. These findings provide insightful guidance to policy makers on which types of service to be opened to private firms in public sectors: in a large‐size market, the mass service can be provided by the private firms; otherwise, both types of services can be opened to the private firms as long as one of them is public.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".