MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1987509576 · doi:10.1002/sres.922

Simulating institutional controls on consumption patterns in the commons

2008· article· en· W1987509576 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSystems Research and Behavioral Science · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicExperimental Behavioral Economics Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommonsConsumption (sociology)SustainabilityQuality (philosophy)Class (philosophy)PopulationPublic economicsEconomicsBusinessMicroeconomicsComputer scienceSociologyPolitical scienceArtificial intelligenceLawEcologySocial scienceDemographyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In 1968, Garrett Hardin identified a class of common goods that suffer under traditional market mechanisms. This paper describes the results of an agent‐based computer simulation used to study how institutional forces shape consumption patterns. Overall, when populations generally act in the common interest, the commons, the population and individuals all experience higher quality outcomes than when they act in generally or exclusively self‐interested ways. The results suggest common‐interested behaviours support a greater population at a higher quality of living; however, exclusively common‐interested behaviours result in underutilized commons, and the whole is generally less well off. The paper frames further applications in terms of managing growth for long‐term sustainability. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.374
GPT teacher head0.503
Teacher spread0.128 · 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