Relationship between consumer behavior and price elasticity with the participation of case analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study systematically investigates four fundamental theoretical models: linear and non-linear demand curve models, marginal utility, price elasticity, and cross-price elasticity, discussing on consumer behavior and commodity pricing. Besides, bridging those classical economic theories and modern marketing strategies: specialty, shopping, convenience, and unsought goods, the paper analyzes the product characteristics in response to the market demand modification. For instance, the non-linear demand curve provides a better explanation of premium pricing tolerance in the specialty, while the cross-price model comes up with a greater illustration of the shopping market (taking “Starbucks” and “Tim Hortons” as examples). Moreover, the unsought market relies on the concave demand curve, connecting the perspective of psychology and situational factors. Based on the implementation of the marketing mix theory(4Ps): Product, Promotion, Place, and Price, an integrated analytical framework was shown with an emphasis on the necessity of contextualized requirements modeling. This research reveals three key limitations in the literature. Possibly, the mismatch between the theoretical assumptions and empirical consumer behavior would arise from missing or inadequate background factors in the analysis, such as geographical and cultural influences, along with the absence of a mathematical formula aligned with the raised assumptions. The outcome optimizes the theoretical system of consumer behavior and provides a theoretical basis for enterprises to develop differentiated pricing strategies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".