Skip to content
Have an account?
Login
or
Register
  • About
    • People
    • Fellows
    • Tastings
    • In the News
    • Awards
      • Christophe Baron Prize
      • AAWE Scholarships
      • AAWE Awards of Merits
    • Downloads
    • Contacts & Copyright
  • Journal
    • Online Journal Member Access
    • Online Journal Library Access
    • Editors
    • JWE – All Issues
    • Submission Guidelines
  • Working Papers
  • Meetings
    • 2023 Stellenbosch
    • 2022 Tbilisi
    • 2019 Vienna
    • 2018 Ithaca
    • 2017 Padua
    • 2016 Bordeaux
    • 2015 Mendoza
    • 2014 Walla Walla
    • 2013 Stellenbosch
    • 2012 Princeton
    • 2011 Bolzano
    • 2010 Davis
    • 2009 Reims
    • 2008 Portland
    • 2007 Trier
  • Membership
Menu
  • About
    • People
    • Fellows
    • Tastings
    • In the News
    • Awards
      • Christophe Baron Prize
      • AAWE Scholarships
      • AAWE Awards of Merits
    • Downloads
    • Contacts & Copyright
  • Journal
    • Online Journal Member Access
    • Online Journal Library Access
    • Editors
    • JWE – All Issues
    • Submission Guidelines
  • Working Papers
  • Meetings
    • 2023 Stellenbosch
    • 2022 Tbilisi
    • 2019 Vienna
    • 2018 Ithaca
    • 2017 Padua
    • 2016 Bordeaux
    • 2015 Mendoza
    • 2014 Walla Walla
    • 2013 Stellenbosch
    • 2012 Princeton
    • 2011 Bolzano
    • 2010 Davis
    • 2009 Reims
    • 2008 Portland
    • 2007 Trier
  • Membership
DONATE
  • Data
  • Jobs & Programs
  • Data
  • Jobs & Programs
Home
»
JWE-Articles
»
Journal of Wine Economics Volume 12 | 2017 | No. 4 | Selected Proceedings
»
Opinions versus Facts: A Bio-statistical Paradigm Shift in Oenological Research

Opinions versus Facts: A Bio-statistical Paradigm Shift in Oenological Research

Dom Cicchetti
JEL Clasification: C1, L15, Q13
Pages: 354-362
Abstract

A substantial oenological literature exists on opinions of experts and neophytes as they relate to opinions about the quality of wines (Ashenfelter and Quandt, 1998; Cicchetti, 2004; Lindley, 2006). These opinions can be contrasted with factual binary questions about wine: Is it oaked? Does it contain sulfites? Is it filtered? Is the grape varietal Cabernet Sauvignon or Cabernet Franc? Syrah or Grenache? Pinot Noir or Gamay? Such factual binary issues are examined within the broader context of the various measures of factual judgment: Overall Accuracy (OA), Sensitivity (Se), Specificity (Sp), Predicted Positive Accuracy (PPA), and Predicted Negative Accuracy (PNA). The resulting biostatistical methodology derives from bio- behavioral diagnostic research investigations. The purpose of this report is to apply this meth- odology to the discipline of oenology to compare wine judgments with wine facts. Using hypothetical examples, wine judges’ classifications of wines as oaked or unoaked were analyzed for their degree of accuracy. The results show that OA is a poor measure of the accuracy of binary judgments relative to Se, Sp, PPA, or PNA. The biostatistics of the problem could have wide-ranging applications in the design of future oenological research investigations, and in scientific research more broadly.

Subscribe to our Email List

You can cancel your subscription at any time.
SUBSCRIBE HERE

Contact

AAWE
Economics Department
New York University
19 W. 4th Street, 6FL
New York, NY 10012, U.S.A.
Tel: (212) 992-8083
Fax: (212) 995-4186
E-Mail: karl.storchmann@nyu.edu

AAWE

Journal

Working Papers as a List

Membership

Videos

LINKS

Fifthsense

JWE at Cambridge University Press

Liquid Assets

Stuart Pigott

Privacy & Cookies Policy

Privacy Policy

Cookies Policy

Twitter Facebook-f Youtube

© AAWE 2021 - All rights reserved