MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6980736977

The consumer preferences of Parmesan cheeses in foreign countries: a non parametric analysis using CUB models

2015· article· en· W6980736977 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Padua Archive (University of Padua) · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic and Technological Innovation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRespondentConsumption (sociology)FeelingConvictionScale (ratio)Food products
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the last decade the exports of parmesan cheese has been reinforced in the north American countries (US and Canada) because of a strong increase in consumption. However, factors boosting this consumption are not always so obvious. For instance, in US both Reggiano and Grana Padano are generally classified as “Parmesan Reggiano and Parmesan Padano” where the term Parmesan is well-known while the differentiation between Reggiano and Padano is often not appreciated or not so clear for US consumers. This paper analyzes data of a survey carried out on US and Canada about the Parmesan’s consumption through a class of mixture models with covariates know as CUS models. The survey, started in 2011, was done in some restaurants chains in US and Canada. A brief questionnaire was fill out by 540 consumers to get information about the of knowledge and appreciation of Parmesan, purchase features as well as factors influencing the purchase and willingness to pay. Information about consumer’s profile were also collected. A descriptive analysis of result show that the Parmesan (as general cheese) is known and appreciated by the majority of respondents, but most of them do not know the difference between Parmigiano Reggiano and Grana Padano. To deeply investigated a CUB model was employed. In particular, the CUB model allows us to better explore the relationship between the consumers and items (answers) and to summarize the distribution of preferences (ranking) expressed by the respondents (as 7 point Likert scale). Using the qualitative judgments of preferences and the overall distributions of rating, the CUB model makes comparisons in a inference context and it associates the consumers features to their evaluations. The CUB model is able to explain, in a direct way, the option that a subject expresses by interpreting it as a mixture of feeling and uncertainty. Feeling and uncertainty and latent components are, therefore, essentially continuous and never observable, and allow a connection with the individual characteristics (covariates) of consumers. The CUB has firstly investigated the following questions: "Level of knowledge of Parmesan", "Degree of appreciation of Parmesan", "Frequency of purchase", "Knowledge of the differences between Parmesan Padano and Parmesan Reggiano" and "Willingness to pay for Parmesan.” The analysis starts by analyzing all consumers and it generates alternative models according to differences in consumers ratings; next the analysis chooses the best models outcome and introduces covariates (consumer’s features) to recognize factors affecting feeling and uncertainty. Firsts results seem to shows a variability in ratings expressed by consumers, except for the level of knowledge where the distribution of scores is similar to the distribution of probability assessed by the model. Secondly, the introduction of covariates (such as country, age, etc.) has identified the effect of factors affecting consumer ratings. Among results, the CUB model shows a different consumer behavior in consuming Parmesan while the comparison between US and Canada revealed significant differences in consumer habits and expectations.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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 score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.067

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.300
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.013 · 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Padua Archive (University of Padua)Same topicEconomic and Technological InnovationFrench-language works237,207