Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Journals
  3. Journal of Wine Economics
  4. Volume 9
Journal Home
Refine listing

Refine listing

Access:
Publication date:

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×
< Back to all issues

Volume 9 - December 2014

Contents

Page 2 of 2

Book and Film Reviews

Articles

  • Quantifying Randomness Versus Consensus in Wine Quality Ratings*

  • Jing Cao
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    29 April 2014, pp. 202-213

  • There has been ongoing interest in studying wine judges' performance in evaluating wines. Most of the studies have reached a similar conclusion: a significant lack of consensus exists in wine quality ratings. However, a few studies, to the author's knowledge, have provided direct quantification of how much consensus (as opposed to randomness) exists in wine ratings. In this paper, a permutation-based mixed model is proposed to quantify randomness versus consensus in wine ratings. Specifically, wine ratings under the condition of randomness are generated with a permutation method, and wine ratings under the condition of consensus can be produced by sorting the ratings for each judge. Then the observed wine ratings are modeled as a mixture of ratings under randomness and ratings under consensus. This study shows that the model can provide excellent model fit, which indicates that wine ratings, indeed, consist of a mixture of randomness and consensus. A direct measure is easily computed to quantify randomness versus consensus in wine ratings. The method is demonstrated with data analysis from a major wine competition and a simulation study. (JEL Classifications: C10, C13, C15)

Book and Film Reviews

Front Cover (OFC, IFC) and matter

  • JWE volume 9 issue 1 Cover and Front matter

  • Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    16 April 2014, pp. f1-f3
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • Export citation

Book and Film Reviews

Back Cover (IBC, OBC) and matter

  • JWE volume 9 issue 1 Cover and Back matter

  • Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    16 April 2014, pp. b1-b4
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • Export citation

Book and Film Reviews

Front Cover (OFC, IFC) and matter

  • JWE volume 9 issue 2 Cover and Front matter

  • Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    14 August 2014, pp. f1-f4
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • Export citation

Book and Film Reviews

Back Cover (IBC, OBC) and matter

  • JWE volume 9 issue 2 Cover and Back matter

  • Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    14 August 2014, pp. b1-b6
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • Export citation

Front Cover (OFC, IFC) and matter

  • JWE volume 9 issue 3 Cover and Front matter

  • Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    16 December 2014, pp. f1-f4
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • Export citation

Back Cover (IBC, OBC) and matter

  • JWE volume 9 issue 3 Cover and Back matter

  • Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    16 December 2014, pp. b1-b4
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • Export citation

Page 2 of 2