MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7132278027

Chi Forest: Taking on Coca-Cola

Yue 方跃, 刘耿, 黄夏燕, 吕星航

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCEIBS Institutional Repository · 2024
Typeother
Language
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsCentre Casa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSet (abstract data type)Test (biology)Term (time)Perspective (graphical)Work (physics)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

元气森林,这家于2016年问世的饮料公司,以其独特的互联网方法论,为许久没有“闯入者”的中国饮料市场带来新意。元气森林以快速制造差异化的爆款产品而著称,旗下拥有气泡水、外星人电解质水、燃茶、元气满满乳茶等产品系列。其中,最引人注目的要属2018年推出的气泡水,它不仅迅速引爆市场,而且一直保持市场领先地位。在接下来的3年里,元气森林的销售额增长了15倍,从1.6亿元飙升至25亿元,成为中国饮料市场上备受瞩目的超新星。 元气森林的强势崛起引起传统饮料巨头们的警觉,对其发动集体“围剿”。这些巨头相继推出与元气森林气泡水类似的无糖气泡水产品,要求渠道商不得代理元气森林的产品,敦促供应商中断对元气森林的供应等。凭借雄厚的资金和资源优势,巨头们打破了元气森林气泡水在市场上“一统天下”的局面。 在这种困境之下,元气森林决定转变策略。这家互联网企业转而学习传统饮料企业的经验,自建工厂、铺设渠道、改造组织,对照传统模式补齐自身短板,并开始尝试新的市场进行反击。他们的目标直指饮料行业的“禁区”——可乐市场。在这个长期被可口可乐、百事可乐垄断的领域,元气森林高调地推出了可乐味气泡水。这不仅仅是一种再造爆款的尝试,更象征着一种勇气,一个小小新贵挑战巨人的勇气。在这场新的挑战中,元气森林的梦想究竟能否成真?这是一个备受关注的问题,也是一个令人激动的故事,一个关于新晋品牌试图在传统巨头的阴影下绽放的故事。

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.587
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.218

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCEIBS Institutional RepositoryFrench-language works237,207