MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2993538256

A Study of Students' Views of Market Fairness

2014· article· en· W2993538256 sur OpenAlex
JOHN G. MARCIS, Alan B. Deck, Daniel L. Bauer, Vicki King-Skinner

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.
no affAucune affiliation canadienne : ce travail est invisible pour une base fondée sur la seule affiliation.
Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of economics and economic education research · 2014
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueExperimental Behavioral Economics Studies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésSet (abstract data type)PerceptionMarketingEconomicsActuarial scienceSocial psychologyPsychologyBusinessComputer science
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION typical introductory Economics text discusses The Three Questions that any society must address: 1) What goods are to be produced?; 2) How are those goods to be produced?; and 3) For Whom are goods produced? When it comes to discussing third question, typical instructor in United States focuses on role played by markets. However, Colander (2003) contends that current majority of principles textbooks excludes discussion of a broader set of failures-of-market outcomes: failures in which market is doing everything it is supposed to be doing, but society is still unhappy with result (p. 83). In today's society, recently highlighted by various Occupy movements, many people view issue as whether market is fair, or at least perceived to be fair. Kahneman, Knetsch, and Thaler (1986b) studied role played by perception of in explaining economic situations. Specifically, two primary objectives of study were to identify community standards of price and possible implications of rules of for market outcomes. authors created 18 scenarios and collected data over 14 months in a series of telephone interviews of randomly selected residents of Toronto and Vancouver. respondents were composed of an approximately equal number of both males and females, were read no more than five of 18 scenarios, and were asked to respond to each scenario with categories Completely Fair, Acceptable, Unfair, and Very Unfair. In article, two favorable responses and two unfavorable responses were collapsed into categories of Acceptable and Unfair to indicate proportions of respondents who judged action acceptable or not. Kahneman et al. found respondents had a strong aversion to price rationing (resulting in some price friction), consumers were more tolerant of price changes resulting from a changing cost structure (than price changes attributed to demand considerations), and a general dislike for use and exploitation of market power. authors concluded: findings of this study suggest that many actions that are both profitable in short run and not obviously dishonest are likely to be perceived as unfair exploitations of market power. Such perceptions can have significant consequences if they find expression in legislation or regulation (Kahneman, Knetsch, and Thaler, 1986b, pp. 738-739). Gorman and Kehr (1992) used 16 of 18 scenarios developed by Kahneman et al., and created six additional contrasting scenarios. authors used a total of 22 scenarios in a survey mailed to randomly selected business executives. authors' intent was to determine whether a sample of business executives would respond to scenarios in a different manner than general population sample by Kahneman et al. With 154 business executives responding, authors concluded that business executives have a different perception of market than general public. Specifically, business executives responding to survey were less inclined to judge profit-maximizing behavior as unfair. Shiller, Boycko, and Korobov (1991) designed 36 scenarios pertaining to fundamental parameters of human behavior related to success of free markets (p. 386, italics in original). 36 scenarios were partitioned into three sets of 12 and administered in a series of telephone interviews to residents of Moscow and New York City. responses were categorical in nature, with about one-half of scenarios having binary Yes or No responses and others having either three or four specified categories. In paper, scenarios were grouped into content areas such as fairness of importance of incentives, the perceptions of speculation, attitudes towards business, and entrepreneurial activities. For scenarios pertaining to of pricing, authors concluded the reported evidence suggests there is actually little ground that Soviets are characteristically more hostile toward free-market prices (p. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,006
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,687
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,379

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0060,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,144
Tête enseignante GPT0,490
Écart entre enseignants0,346 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle