subconscious.ai
← All studies

Research study · 2024

Towards an ethical chocolate supply chain: Matching Swiss consumer preferences with policy instruments

Explore the published experiment and its available replication evidence.

Max Rudolf · Rudolf2026

Read the paper ↗

01 / Human finding

What the study found

A reviewed summary is not available in this registry. Consult the published paper for the original finding.

Answer-key review: Not reviewed

02 / Experiment design

Who chose, and what varied

Country
Switzerland
Human respondents
Not recorded
Attributes
5
Task
discrete choice

03 / Synthetic replication

Registry replication results

Current replication

Spearman rank correlation

Not measured

No current measurement is available in this registry.

Paper-era reference

2023 CLM mean Spearman ρ

Not measured

Historical results use their original estimator and reference. They are not a matched comparison with the current run.

Detailed replication evidence · 2026-11-04

Right direction on 6 of 8 significant effects, partial ranking (ρ = 0.74); sizes not comparable (the paper reports logit coefficients).

Use it to screen which attributes move choice; sizes need the paper's respondent data, and confirm the 2 reversed effects with people.

Inspect the measured run ↗

direction
mixed
rank
mixed
size
not comparable

Supported uses

  • Nothing yet without human confirmation.

Limits to keep in view

  • Ranking close levels against each other; the order diverges from humans.
  • Decisions that hinge on the attributes whose direction flipped (listed below).
  • Effect sizes in the paper's units; only direction, rank and shape are compared.

Effects on a common scale

Human effects: logit coefficient. Synthetic effects are multiplied by the record’s calibration factor, k = 2.0729. Calibration aligns magnitude; it does not establish agreement in unadjusted effect sizes.

● Human   ◆ Calibrated synthetic · Lines show human 95% intervals where available.
-0.7400.74Cocoa distribution channel: Small- and medium-sized enterprisesCocoa distribution channel: Small- and medi…Cocoa distribution channel: Agricultural cooperativesCocoa distribution channel: Agricultural co…Cocoa distribution channel: Direct tradeCocoa distribution channel: Direct tradeEnvironmental impact of cocoa cultivation: Reduction of water pollutionEnvironmental impact of cocoa cultivation: …Environmental impact of cocoa cultivation: Reduction of soil erosionEnvironmental impact of cocoa cultivation: …Environmental impact of cocoa cultivation: Reduction of GHG emissionsEnvironmental impact of cocoa cultivation: …Place of chocolate production: SwitzerlandPlace of chocolate production: SwitzerlandLabel: Fair tradeLabel: Fair tradeLabel: Humane working conditionsLabel: Humane working conditionsLabel: Farmer-ownedLabel: Farmer-owned
Human and calibrated synthetic effects
Attribute / levelHumanHuman 95% half-widthCalibrated synthetic
Cocoa distribution channel: Large agri-food companies (reference)0.000Not measured0.000
Cocoa distribution channel: Small- and medium-sized enterprises0.255Not measured0.331
Cocoa distribution channel: Agricultural cooperatives0.190Not measured0.316
Cocoa distribution channel: Direct trade0.265Not measured0.224
Environmental impact of cocoa cultivation: Reduction of deforestation (reference)0.000Not measured0.000
Environmental impact of cocoa cultivation: Reduction of water pollution-0.160Not measured0.129
Environmental impact of cocoa cultivation: Reduction of soil erosion-0.166Not measured-0.041
Environmental impact of cocoa cultivation: Reduction of GHG emissions-0.139Not measured0.135
Place of chocolate production: Global South (e.g., Ecuador) (reference)0.000Not measured0.000
Place of chocolate production: Switzerland0.675Not measured0.497
Label: Organic cultivation (reference)0.000Not measured0.000
Label: Fair trade0.069Not measured0.264
Label: Humane working conditions0.029Not measured0.046
Label: Farmer-owned0.137Not measured0.103

Subgroups · screen, not a result

Split by sex: no significant difference between the groups, so there is nothing to compare

screen, not a result. Each row is the male group’s effect minus the female group’s, human in logit, simulated on the simulation’s own scale, so compare direction, not size. A Jev fast-small screen makes no comparison claim.

Sign agreement
–
95% interval
no interval
Shuffle null
–
Shape ρ
–
Scale ratio
–
Respondents per group
GroupSimulated nPeople nρ vs paper
female146not given–
male134not given–
Group differences: male minus female
Attribute / levelPeople Δ (95%)SignificantSimulated Δ (own scale)Direction
Label: Fair trade-0.08 ±0.19no-0.05 ±0.09not compared
Label: Humane working conditions-0.07 ±0.17no+0.01 ±0.09not compared
Label: Farmer-owned+0.02 ±0.19no-0.03 ±0.11not compared
Place of chocolate production: Switzerland-0.12 ±0.17no-0.02 ±0.07not compared

Interval: Wilson 95% on the significant differences. Shuffle null: groups reassigned at random among the simulated respondents. Scored from screen run 771e0f6d-d3c5-487a-be8b-e05c26e551f2, W&B score ↗.

04 / Evidence and limitations

Follow the evidence

Missing results mean unmeasured, not zero agreement.

  • missing parent paper url
  • missing canonical pdf
  • missing historic score
  • missing resolved wandb run
Measurement provenance

Registry revision: 648f40378e9c. Estimator: ols.