MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Why humans deviate from rational choice

2010· article· en· W1550037196 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychophysiology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicPsychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUltimatum gamePsychologyAnterior cingulate cortexNegativity effectPunishment (psychology)Cognitive psychologyReinforcementReinforcement learningIowa gambling taskDictator gameSocial decision makingSocial psychologyCognitionNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rational choice theory predicts that humans always optimize the expected utility of options when making decisions. However, in decision-making games, humans often punish their opponents even when doing so reduces their own reward. We used the Ultimatum and Dictator games to examine the affective correlates of decision-making. We show that the feedback negativity, an event-related brain potential that originates in the anterior cingulate cortex that has been related to reinforcement learning, predicts the decision to reject unfair offers in the Ultimatum game. Furthermore, the decision to reject is positively related to more negative emotional reactions and to increased autonomic nervous system activity. These findings support the idea that subjective emotional markers guide decision-making and that the anterior cingulate cortex integrates instances of reinforcement and punishment to provide such affective markers.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.802
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.233 · 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