MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1486237550

ASYMMETRY AND COLLUSION IN INFINITELY REPEATED CONTESTS

2005· preprint· en· W1486237550 on OpenAlexaff
J. Atsu Amegashie

Bibliographic record

VenueRePEc: Research Papers in Economics · 2005
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicExperimental Behavioral Economics Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCONTESTCollusionEconomicsAggregate (composite)MicroeconomicsRent-seekingInformation asymmetryContrast (vision)Repeated gameComplete informationEconometricsAsymmetryGame theoryComputer sciencePolitics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

I show that in an infinitely repeated contest, collusion is easier to sustain when the players are more equal than when they are less equal. Therefore, aggregate rent-seeking expenditures may be lower when the contestants are more equally matched. This is in sharp contrast to the standard result in static rent-seeking contests where increasing asymmetries between players reduce aggregate expenditures. I also discuss how this result has implications for signaling in contests with incomplete information.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.353
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.063
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.333 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRePEc: Research Papers in EconomicsSame topicExperimental Behavioral Economics StudiesFrench-language works237,207