MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Efficiency, utility and wealth maximization

2002· book-chapter· en· W180716094 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Jules L. Coleman

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic Theory and Institutions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersConnaught FundNational Endowment for the Humanities
KeywordsComparabilityUtilitarianismEconomicsPareto principleNormativeMaximizationMathematical economicsInferenceSocial choice theoryExpected utility hypothesisMicroeconomicsPositive economicsMathematicsLawPhilosophyPolitical scienceEpistemologyOperations management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This chapter argues that two states of affairs, S' and S, can be Kaldor-Hicks efficient to each other (the Scitovsky paradox), whereas S' and S cannot each contain more utility than the other. So from the fact that S' is Kaldor-Hicks efficient to S, it cannot be inferred that S' increases utility over S. This leads to the contradictory conclusion that S and S' increase utility with respect to each other. Based on the fact that a social state, S, is Pareto optimal, no inference about whether the move to it from a previous social state increases utility can be warranted — at least not without a standard of interpersonal comparability. The chapter goes on to show that only Pareto superiority bears the desired relationship to utilitarianism; that is, if S' is Pareto superior to S, then S' increases utility with respect to S. The rest of the chapter discusses at length various lines of defense for normative economic analysis.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.006
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.155 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations176
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEconomic Theory and InstitutionsFrench-language works237,207