Bibliographic record
Abstract
Modern conceptions of utility are rooted in the system that Jeremy Bentham proposed to determine which actions and laws most benefit the most people. Bentham believed that the value of every action could be quantified in terms of its utility – the intensity of pleasure or pain that it caused, as well as the duration of its influence, its uncertainty, and its propinquity or remoteness. The value of every action was thus a function of the total pleasure and pain it elicited, weighted by its duration, certainty, and when it would happen (Bentham, 1789). This system, which fell out of favor among economists of the twentieth century, serves as the basis of much of the research examining the pleasure and pain derived from experiences and normative decision making today (Bruni & Sugden, 2007; Read, 2007). In this chapter, I review the history of the concept from Bentham to the present (Historical Background), distinctions between different kinds of utility and judgments (Components and Judgments of Experienced Utility), how utility is measured (Measuring Instant and Total Utility), contextual factors that influence the utility associated with experiences (Context Dependence), how experienced utility is evaluated prospectively and retrospectively (Predicted and Remembered Utility), and why people make decisions that do not maximize utility (Maximization Failures).
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".