Talk:Choice modelling

original or an advertisement

I don't understand how Wikipedia thinks this is original or an advertisement. I am assembling references now.

Busily adding references - Don't delete please this is important science —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bennose (talk • contribs) 13:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC) Is that better... rob? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bennose (talk • contribs) 15:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some Guy called TipToe keeps trying to delete articles without actually reading (or understanding presumably) the subject m,atter. - Now I know why, he's running for some kind of king of the nerds editor position - I'm going to vote against him. Wikipedia does not need any more clever fools like him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SamanthaFox27 (talk • contribs) 10:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go to http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Tiptoety_3#Oppose —Preceding unsigned comment added by SamanthaFox27 (talk • contribs) 10:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

problem with several statements

Okay, this all sounds great, but I have a problem with several statements. First, "Unlike a poll or a survey, predictions are able to be made over large numbers of scenarios within a context, to the order of 10^20 (100,000,000,000,000,000,000)" is a very bold claim, and the reference supposedly supporting this claim is not a reference at all. Instead, it seems to be a web-based survey company that does not make available any information relevant to Choice Modelling. Second, "Choice Modelling is believed to be the most accurate and general purpose tool currently available for making probabilistic predictions about human decision making behaviour" is another very bold claim without any reference at all. I examined the reference provided by the next sentence on the off-chance it was meant to be a reference for both sentences, but the reference never states anything so encouraging as to suggest that Choice Modelling is the most accurate tool available. In fact, it lists a number of criticisms, including harsh criticism of sample sizes (suggesting it is NOT the "most accurate" tool) and implementation (suggesting it is NOT most "general purpose" tool either). With such grandiose claims about the subject matter, lack of relevant references, and presence of references to the contrary, it is no wonder Wikipedia thinks this article is an advertisement. I hope I am wrong, because this all sounds very cool, but I won't buy into anything this impressive sounding without some evidence to back up its claims.

In short, this article sounds more like an Amway seminar than an encyclopedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.210.107.101 (talk) 03:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why this idolatrous worship of CAPITAL LETTERS?

If someone in the management field tells me a capital initial letter is needed in any particular instance, I will treat that person like the boy who cried "wolf". Look at this edit. I've done hundreds of things like this over several years. It's not just wholesale violation of the convention of WP:MOS on capitals in section headings; look at the cases of capital initial letters for common nouns in the body of the article that I corrected. I suspect there are a lot more; I haven't gone through the article. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Czajkowski's comment on this article

Dr. Czajkowski has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

The article does not give a good overview - only selected topics are covered.
Perhaps this should be joined with 'Discrete choice' article?
Choice set, conjoint analysis and controlled experiments seem to be different things. For one, see:
Louviere, J., Flynn, T., and Carson, R., 2010. Discrete Choice Experiments Are Not Conjoint Analysis. Journal of Choice Modelling, 3(3):57-72.

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Dr. Czajkowski has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:

Reference : Czajkowski, Mikolaj & Hanley, Nick & Nyborg, Karine, 2014. "Social norms, Morals and Self-interest as Determinants of Pro-environment Behaviours," Memorandum 18/2014, Oslo University, Department of Economics.

ExpertIdeas (talk) 04:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Scarpa's comment on this article

Dr. Scarpa has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

I think that the sub-section title "Designing a choice model" is misleading. It should be: "Designing a choice model from stated choice", as the section only refers to modelling from such type of choices.
Also, the discussion on experimental design is quite limited and does not address experimental designs (1) geared to a specifically assumed utility function or (2) efficient designs for the estimation of marginal willingness to pay, which are the most frequent designs used in practice.
To cover these succinctly I suggest to add (just before the sub-heading "Constructing the survey") the following:
Apart from securing the identification of the desired effects of attributes and their levels, researchers often are interested in minimizing the sample size required to achieve a given level of estimation accuracy, or in maximizing the efficiency (minimizing the sampling variance) of the estimates given a sample size. Such estimates might include utility coefficients, or their functions, such as marginal willingness to pay. These and other goals require the optimization of the design over specific design statistics [a,b,c, d]
[a] Sándor, Z. & Wedel, M. (2001), 'Designing Conjoint Choice Experiments Using Managers' Prior Beliefs', Journal of Marketing Research 38(4), 430-444.
[b] Ferrini, S. & Scarpa, R. (2007), 'Designs with a-priori information for nonmarket valuation with choice-experiments: a Monte Carlo study', Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 53(3), 342-363.
[c] Scarpa, R. & Rose, J. M. (2008), 'Designs efficiency for nonmarket valuation with choice modelling: how to measure it, what to report and why', Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 52, 253-282.
[d] Kessels, R.; Jones, B.; Goos, P. & Vandebroek, M. (2009), 'An Efficient Algorithm for Constructing Bayesian Optimal Choice Designs', Journal of Business and Economic Statistics 27, 279--291.
Other issues:
reference [24] should be: Train, K. & Weeks, M. (2005), Discrete Choice Models in Preference Space and Willing-to-pay Space, in R. Scarpa & A. Alberini, ed., 'Applications of simulation methods in environmental and resource economics', Springer Publisher, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 1-16.
Where ref. [24] and [25] are cited, I think there should also be a citation to (both with large and growing n. of citations in the field):
[26] Scarpa, R.; Thiene, M. & Train, K. (2008), 'Utility in WTP space: a tool to address confounding random scale effects in destination choice to the Alps', American Journal of Agricultural Economics 90, 994-1010.
[27] Daly, A.; Hess, S. & Train, K. (2012), 'Assuring finite moments for willingness to pay in random coefficients models', Transportation 39(1), 19--31.

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Dr. Scarpa has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:

Reference 1: John Gibson & Riccardo Scarpa & Halahingano Rohorua, 2013. "Respiratory Health of Pacific Island Immigrants and Preferences for Indoor Air Quality Determinants in New Zealand," Working Papers in Economics 13/09, University of Waikato, Department of Economics.

Reference 2: Ricardo Scarpa & Mara Thiene & Francesco Marangon, 2007. "The Value of Collective Reputation for Environmentally Friendly Production Methods: The Case of Val di Gresta," Working Papers in Economics 07/11, University of Waikato, Department of Economics.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 22:38, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]