MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1971272404 · doi:10.1177/109114210203000505

Public Provision of Indivisible Private Goods in Short Supply

2002· article· en· W1971272404 on OpenAlexaff
Dan Usher

Bibliographic record

VenuePublic Finance Review · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender, Labor, and Family Dynamics
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublic goodGovernment (linguistics)Private goodEconomicsPublic economicsGovernment expenditureLabour economicsBusinessPublic financeMicroeconomicsMacroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Public provision of private goods is usually modeled as the displacement of a market where people can buy as much or as little of a good as they please, with tax-financed provision by the government of equal and identical amounts of the good per person. But public provision is not always equal per person because some goods cannot be supplied equally or because the government does not choose to supply goods equally. There may be fewer organs available for transplant than there are people who need them. The best education and medical care are unavoidably rationed because teachers and doctors differ in skill or dedication. Total public expenditure may be insufficient to provide for everybody when there is a lower limit to useful expenditure per person.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.842
Threshold uncertainty score0.620

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.079
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePublic Finance ReviewSame topicGender, Labor, and Family DynamicsFrench-language works237,207