| Model . | Prediction . | Observation . | Predictive scorea . | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| . | . | Conventional tea . | Organic tea . | . |
| Original data | ||||
| Logit | 0 | 0.9509 (155) | 0.45 (18) | 0.872 |
| 1 | 0.0491 (8) | 0.55 (22) | ||
| Heterogeneity | 0 | 0.9325 (152) | 0.25 (10) | 0.896 |
| 1 | 0.0675 (11) | 0.75 (30) | ||
| Endogeneity | 0 | 0.5864 (95) | 0.075 (3) | 0.653 |
| 1 | 0.4136 (67) | 0.9250 (37) | ||
| Imputation data | ||||
| Logit | 0 | 0.9040 (160) | 0.4688 (30) | 0.805 |
| 1 | 0.0960 (17) | 0.5313 (34) | ||
| Heterogeneity | 0 | 0.7966 (141) | 0.2031 (13) | 0.797 |
| 1 | 0.2034 (36) | 0.7969 (51) | ||
| Endogeneity | 0 | 0.4237 (75) | 0.0469 (3) | 0.564 |
| 1 | 0.5763 (102) | 0.9531 (61) | ||
| Model . | Prediction . | Observation . | Predictive scorea . | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| . | . | Conventional tea . | Organic tea . | . |
| Original data | ||||
| Logit | 0 | 0.9509 (155) | 0.45 (18) | 0.872 |
| 1 | 0.0491 (8) | 0.55 (22) | ||
| Heterogeneity | 0 | 0.9325 (152) | 0.25 (10) | 0.896 |
| 1 | 0.0675 (11) | 0.75 (30) | ||
| Endogeneity | 0 | 0.5864 (95) | 0.075 (3) | 0.653 |
| 1 | 0.4136 (67) | 0.9250 (37) | ||
| Imputation data | ||||
| Logit | 0 | 0.9040 (160) | 0.4688 (30) | 0.805 |
| 1 | 0.0960 (17) | 0.5313 (34) | ||
| Heterogeneity | 0 | 0.7966 (141) | 0.2031 (13) | 0.797 |
| 1 | 0.2034 (36) | 0.7969 (51) | ||
| Endogeneity | 0 | 0.4237 (75) | 0.0469 (3) | 0.564 |
| 1 | 0.5763 (102) | 0.9531 (61) | ||
Note: Prediction = 0 (conventional tea), 1 (organic tea).
| Model . | Prediction . | Observation . | Predictive scorea . | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| . | . | Conventional tea . | Organic tea . | . |
| Original data | ||||
| Logit | 0 | 0.9509 (155) | 0.45 (18) | 0.872 |
| 1 | 0.0491 (8) | 0.55 (22) | ||
| Heterogeneity | 0 | 0.9325 (152) | 0.25 (10) | 0.896 |
| 1 | 0.0675 (11) | 0.75 (30) | ||
| Endogeneity | 0 | 0.5864 (95) | 0.075 (3) | 0.653 |
| 1 | 0.4136 (67) | 0.9250 (37) | ||
| Imputation data | ||||
| Logit | 0 | 0.9040 (160) | 0.4688 (30) | 0.805 |
| 1 | 0.0960 (17) | 0.5313 (34) | ||
| Heterogeneity | 0 | 0.7966 (141) | 0.2031 (13) | 0.797 |
| 1 | 0.2034 (36) | 0.7969 (51) | ||
| Endogeneity | 0 | 0.4237 (75) | 0.0469 (3) | 0.564 |
| 1 | 0.5763 (102) | 0.9531 (61) | ||
| Model . | Prediction . | Observation . | Predictive scorea . | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| . | . | Conventional tea . | Organic tea . | . |
| Original data | ||||
| Logit | 0 | 0.9509 (155) | 0.45 (18) | 0.872 |
| 1 | 0.0491 (8) | 0.55 (22) | ||
| Heterogeneity | 0 | 0.9325 (152) | 0.25 (10) | 0.896 |
| 1 | 0.0675 (11) | 0.75 (30) | ||
| Endogeneity | 0 | 0.5864 (95) | 0.075 (3) | 0.653 |
| 1 | 0.4136 (67) | 0.9250 (37) | ||
| Imputation data | ||||
| Logit | 0 | 0.9040 (160) | 0.4688 (30) | 0.805 |
| 1 | 0.0960 (17) | 0.5313 (34) | ||
| Heterogeneity | 0 | 0.7966 (141) | 0.2031 (13) | 0.797 |
| 1 | 0.2034 (36) | 0.7969 (51) | ||
| Endogeneity | 0 | 0.4237 (75) | 0.0469 (3) | 0.564 |
| 1 | 0.5763 (102) | 0.9531 (61) | ||
Note: Prediction = 0 (conventional tea), 1 (organic tea).
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only
View Article Abstract & Purchase OptionsFor full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.
