regarding the duties of issuers of financial instruments which have been admitted for trading on a regulated market. Anheuser-Busch InBev reports First Quarter 2014 Results Highlights
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Except where otherwise stated, the comments below are based on organic figures and refer to 1Q14 versus the same period of last year. For important notes and disclaimers please refer to page 13. Revenue growth: Revenue grew by 8.9 % in the quarter. This result was due to growth in total volumes of 4.4%, with revenue per hl also growing by 4.4%, driven by our revenue management and premiumization initiatives. On a constant geographic basis, revenue per hl grew by 5.7% Volume performance: Our own beer volumes grew by 4.5%, driven by volume growth in all four of our top markets, while non-beer volumes grew by 3.0%. In the US, sales to wholesalers (STWs) grew by 2.1%, due to contingency planning in advance of labor negotiations, while selling day adjusted sales–to-retailers decreased by 2.6%
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 | 0.007 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.152 | 0.051 |
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".