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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The assumption of free will in contemporary economics is an important starting point for socio‐economic analysis in contrast to methodologies which assume that human action is pre‐determined by forces beyond individual control. However, contemporary economic theory is devoid of choice in critical domains with important implication for economic analyses and public policy, given the ancillary assumption of the importance of market forces in determining choice behavior. The purpose of this paper is to argue that freedom of choice exists given traditional constraints such as relative prices and income. Design/methodology/approach This is a theoretical paper examining the assumption of free will in choice behaviour in economic theory. It makes reference to literature in economics and philosophy that shed light on this critical working assumption in economics. Findings Conventional analysis pays little heed to non economic constraints on human action that affect and delimit but do not preclude free choice or free will. Of vital importance to free will in choice behavior are institutions which delimit the extent of coercion in the decision‐making process. Practical implications An important implication for research is the determination of the necessary and sufficient conditions for the existence of free will in choice behaviour. Given the existence of free will and free choice, individuals are morally responsible for their choices. It is therefore important to determine the extent which free will exists and that which constrains free will in choice behaviour. Originality/value This paper challenges the extremes of the free will debate in economics and suggests the boundaries within which free will exists in economic behaviour. It also suggests the welfare implications of limitations on free will where no negative externalities exist.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it