MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1734675635

Thoughts on quantifying overconfidence in economic experiments

2013· article· en· W1734675635 on OpenAlexaff
Julija Michailova, Joana K. Q. Katter

Bibliographic record

VenueMunich Personal RePEc Archive (Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich) · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersDeutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst
KeywordsOverconfidence effectTest (biology)Sample (material)Measure (data warehouse)Actuarial sciencePsychologyEconometricsComputer scienceEconomicsSocial psychologyData mining
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article illustrates the difficulties of quantifying overconfidence in economic experiments and suggests a procedure for the development of the reliable overconfidence measurement instrument (test). Following the suggested two-stage procedure a sample measure of overconfidence is developed. First a pilot test is conducted to divide the initial fifty items into three difficulty levels: hard, moderate and easy questions. A final test was compiled of six questions of each difficulty levels. In the second phase a replicability check was run with the final instrument.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.779
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.001
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 head0.158
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.199 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designOther design
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

Citations2
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMunich Personal RePEc Archive (Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich)Same topicDecision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsFrench-language works237,207