MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7096296133

Anheuser-Busch InBev reports Third Quarter and Nine Months 2014 Results Highlights

2014· article· en· W7096296133 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicWine Industry and Tourism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRevenueTotal revenueQuarter (Canadian coin)ChinaVolume (thermodynamics)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Except where otherwise stated, the comments below are based on organic figures and refer to 3Q14 and 9M14 versus the same period of last year. For important notes and disclaimers please refer to page 13 Revenue growth: Revenue grew by 2.3 % in 3Q14 and by 5.3 % in 9M14, with revenue per hl growth of 5.0 % in 3Q14 and 4.5 % in 9M14. On a constant geographic basis, revenue per hl grew by 4.9 % in 3Q14 and by 5.2 % in 9M14 Volume performance: Total volumes in 3Q14 declined by 2.6%, with own beer volumes decreasing by 2.7%, while non-beer volumes declined by 0.9%. o US beer sales-to-wholesalers (STWs) declined by 3.7%, with selling-day adjusted sales-to-retailers (STRs) declining by 1.9% o Volumes in Mexico grew by 2.9%, with strong performances by Corona, Bud Light and Victoria o Beer volumes in Brazil grew by 0.2%, being impacted by a soft consumer environment o Volumes in China declined by 4.9%, mainly due to cold temperatures in August and September. In 9M14, total volumes grew by 0.8%, with own beer volumes up 0.6 % and non-beer volumes up 2.6% Focus Brands: Volumes of our global brands grew by 3.1 % in 3Q14, led by global Corona which grew by 6.7%, and global Budweiser which grew by 2.8%. Our total Focus Brands volumes declined by 1.0%

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.564
Threshold uncertainty score0.623

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0070.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.5640.433

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.193 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicWine Industry and TourismFrench-language works237,207