{"id":"W3121339688","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.902823","title":"Learning from a Piece of Pie: The Empirical Content of Nash Bargaining","year":2006,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"SSRN Electronic Journal","topic":"Game Theory and Voting Systems","field":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","cited_by":8,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":false,"ca_institutions":"Bureau de Coopération Interuniversitaire","funders":"","keywords":"Bargaining problem; Outcome (game theory); Economics; Microeconomics; Point (geometry); Status quo; Best response; Nash equilibrium; Risk dominance; Mathematical economics; Affect (linguistics); Set (abstract data type); Epsilon-equilibrium; Mathematics; Computer science; Psychology","routes":{"ca_aff":true,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":false,"invisible_to_affiliation_only":false},"retraction":null,"screen":null,"direct_labels":[],"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.01125232,0.000381065,0.001177527,0.0009654771,0.001290213,0.003954861,0.001739567,0.002314427,0.01699249],"category_scores_gemma":[0.1320588,0.0004338556,0.000539495,0.001381191,0.003672125,0.009002837,0.001762199,0.003875441,0.001090501],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.001008868,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0007467613,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.001763737,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.001635066,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9963028,0.002341488,0.0001250979,0.0004658086,0.0004936269,0.0002711741],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9223285,0.06654942,0.003521497,0.00508709,0.001574454,0.0009390242],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_scores_codex":[0.001054403,0.0005116556,0.02951432,0.0002733401,0.000217756,0.0001913906,0.002426427,0.04406831,0.0009226213,0.8313118,0.00622711,0.08328092],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00004694643,0.00005697011,0.008681356,0.00004840282,0.00003285563,0.00005284796,0.0008656983,0.06344661,0.0002917919,0.9245805,0.001868163,0.0000279497],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.8118953,0.0009376824,0.1168714,0.006505467,0.0001991604,0.0001202622,0.0003314502,0.0001256911,0.06301348],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9929996,0.0002003948,0.003321111,0.0002050669,0.0000654063,0.0000340825,0.0001044442,0.00003004416,0.003039878],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.01699249,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.05950862,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"machine_scores":{"provisional":true,"baseline":true,"maturity_gate_passed":false,"score_opus":0.07494899975378698,"score_gpt":0.2374719083972194,"score_spread":0.1625229086434324,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","note":"Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed). Scores rank; they never assert a category."}}