{"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":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.003361322,0.0001055409,0.000370545,0.00009301887,0.0001291401,0.00002463581,0.000280248,0.00006731909,0.00005778862],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0001969926,0.00008665281,0.0001728518,0.0001473104,0.00007336671,0.00008010618,0.00003065567,0.001027031,0.00003074405],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0001735928,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0001575143,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0008484974,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.000120453,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9981254,0.00009855112,0.0007901083,0.0001537691,0.00005996299,0.0007721508],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9987141,0.0001948373,0.000864387,0.0001516537,0.0000488027,0.00002620945],"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":[0.00004501984,0.00005972009,0.2059845,0.000005400428,0.0001492109,6.967643e-7,0.0007494079,0.0006285483,0.0006722818,0.7905946,0.00004031436,0.0010703],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.001129619,0.0004886068,0.03864713,0.00006577274,0.00002419145,0.00007254697,0.004992795,0.001391743,0.0004915703,0.950389,0.002101477,0.0002055973],"study_design_candidate":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_consensus":"theoretical_or_conceptual","genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.9797322,0.006560315,0.00759518,0.0002358265,0.0001447201,0.00006599337,0.00000707089,0.00001048561,0.0056482],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9979925,0.0002314672,0.00003777079,0.00002720965,0.0002357494,0.000001885295,0.000002767527,0.00001629909,0.001454403],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.1673373,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.4461996,"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."}}