MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7144876994

Vertically Integrated Branding: A Study of the American Shipping Brewers, 1875-1900

2016· article· en· W7144876994 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dawson Roy LEWIS

Bibliographic record

VenueInstitutional Repositories DataBase (IRDB) · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicWine Industry and Tourism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProduction (economics)Vertical integrationCapital (architecture)Quarter (Canadian coin)Market share
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Until the last quarter of the nineteenth century, technological and scientific barriers had protected American brewers from distant competitors. The first national shipping brewers upended that paradigm by introducing growth models which necessitated foreign market penetration. Though they were neither the first nor necessarily the largest mass-producing brewers for much of the period, the modern brewing industry reflects these early models and for good reason. The shipping brewers’ phenomenal success relied heavily on vertical integration with which they exploited economies of scale, secured supply chains, and penetrated new markets. Most importantly, their newly established firms along the production path also served as marketing platforms from which the brewers developed and disseminated their brand “personalities.” Every step, from production to transportation to distribution, demonstrated the symbiotic nature of the shipping brewers’ brand building approach. Their capital intensive production methods allowed brewers to operate on thinner margins while also lending the shipping brewers a “mass production mystique.” Their railroad companies not only provided access to far-flung locales, they also served as mobile billboards. Their tied-house saloons not only ensured steady sales but also linked their brands to luxury and refinement in an age when Americans were increasingly seeking validation in consumer goods. Ultimately, the more and better beer they could produce, the more effective were their advertisements--and vice versa. This dynamic explains how a handful of midsized breweries of mid-sized American cities came to dominate the industry by the end of the century. 概要 19世紀の最後の四半世紀までは、アメリカのビール醸造業者は技術的、科学的な障壁によって遠方の競合他社から保護されていた。初めて全国出荷を果たした醸造業者は、外国市場へ参入することが必要な成長モデルを導入することによって、そのパラダイムを逆転させた。現代の醸造業者は最初の、もしくは当時の多くの間最大規模の大量生産業者ではなかったのであるが、良い理由があってこれらの初期モデルを反映した。全国展開する醸造業者の驚異的な成功は、彼らの経済規模、安定サプライチェーン、および参入した新たな市場を活用した垂直統合に大きく依存していた。最も重要なのは、彼らが新たに設立した企業はまた、生産経路に沿って、商業的な基盤として働いたことであり、そこから自分たちのブランドを開発し、ブランドの「個性」を普及させたことである。製造から輸送、配送へのすべてのステップ は、全国展開する醸造業者のブランド構築のアプローチの象徴的な性質を明らかにした。彼らの資本集約的な製造方法はまた、より薄利で運営することを可能にし、「大量生産の神秘性」を与えた。彼らの経営する鉄道会社は、遠く離れた場所へのアクセスを提供するだけでなく、広告宣伝車を務めていた。彼らの直営パブは、着実に売上を確保しただけでなく、アメリカ人がその眼鏡にかなう商品をより強く求めていた時代に、自社のブランドに豪華さと洗練された感じを与えた。究極的には、彼らがより多くより良いビールを作ることが出来れば、広告はより効果的になり、その逆もまた真であった。この動きは、中規模アメリカの都市の一握りの中規模ビール醸造所が、とのようにして今世紀末までに、業界を支配するようになったかの説明となる。

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.657
Threshold uncertainty score0.498

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInstitutional Repositories DataBase (IRDB)Same topicWine Industry and TourismFrench-language works237,207