MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2009840145 · doi:10.1016/s0362-3319(00)00103-8

An alternative interpretation of the household’s optimization problem

2000· article· en· W2009840145 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

VenueThe Social Science Journal · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomics of Agriculture and Food Markets
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBudget constraintInterpretation (philosophy)Consumption (sociology)Constraint (computer-aided design)EconomicsSubject (documents)MicroeconomicsComputer scienceMathematical economicsSociologyMathematicsSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This note is an invitation to academic economists to broaden the way in which we present and interpret the household’s optimization problem to our students in microeconomics courses. It suggests that while maximizing utility subject to a budget constraint is mathematically equivalent to minimizing expenditures for a given target level of utility, the psychological implications of these alternative presentations of the optimization problem may be quite different. Instead of influencing the attitude and consumption behavior of our students by explaining only one of these approaches, we may want to expose them to both interpretations and let them choose the one they find more appropriate, hopefully after giving careful thought to both of them.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.301
Threshold uncertainty score0.533

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.211 · 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