Bibliographic record
Abstract
La théorie des jeux a profondément renouvelé l’analyse économique de l’équilibre en tant que coordination sociale des choix individuels. Plus particulièrement, un ensemble de travaux a récemment émergé qui explore les conditions cognitives des principaux concepts d’équilibre stratégique. Notre article se propose alors d’éclairer les limites de cette nouvelle approche en théorie des jeux du point de vue de la coordination sociale. Nous préciserons, d’une part, ses limites internes qui concernent soit les conditions cognitives très fortes, soit les obstacles à la coordination en raison d’une incomplétude des modèles. D’autre part, nous dégagerons la limite externe de la théorie des jeux qui est liée à sa manière de poser la question de la coordination sociale comme une question d’information, en laissant de côté la question de la signification des choix et des actions individuels. Le dépassement de cette limite externe nous conduira, à la fin, à envisager d’autres fondements que des fondements cognitifs pour la coordination sociale des actions individuelles, adaptés à un nouveau type de jeux, les jeux à institution.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".