MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7105982844 · doi:10.1111/itor.70129

Profitability of private brands of e‐commerce platforms offering competing national brands under agency selling

2025· article· en· W7105982844 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Transactions in Operational Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicConsumer Market Behavior and Pricing
Canadian institutionsAthabasca UniversityOntario Tech University
FundersCanadian Network for Research and Innovation in Machining Technology, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsProfitability indexAgency (philosophy)Profit (economics)Consumer welfareCompetition (biology)Product (mathematics)National brandPrivate label

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper investigates the impact of a private brand (PB) introduction by an e‐commerce platform. Contrary to previous research, the platform allows competing manufacturers to sell their national brands (NBs) directly to consumers for an agency fee. Our game‐theoretic analysis allows us to derive the following key insights. The levels of competition between NBs, and NBs and the PB, as well as the agency fees manufacturers pay to the platform are critical in determining the profitability of introducing PBs. Introducing a PB may not benefit the platform, especially when the PB and the NBs are asymmetric and are competing closely. However, when the platform can profit by introducing a PB, it is at the expense of NB manufacturers as they are pressured to reduce their prices and also experience a decline in sales. Finally, introducing PBs enhances consumer welfare by reducing NB prices and expanding consumer demand in the product category.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.294 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Transactions in Operational ResearchSame topicConsumer Market Behavior and PricingFrench-language works237,207