The prevalence of hyperbolic discounting: some European evidence
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
Experimental matching data are used from the 2000 Bank of Italy Survey of Household Income and Wealth (SHIW) and the 2000 wave of the Center for Economic Research (CentER) Savings Survey at Tilburg University to compare the relative frequencies of hyperbolic and exponential discounters. Among 3200 Italian respondents and 1400 Dutch respondents, less than a quarter exhibited hyperbolic discounting. This finding is both statistically significant and robust with respect to various assumptions regarding utility; moreover, it holds across a wide variety of economic, social and demographic characteristics. The youngest, poorest, most urban and least educated individuals are the most likely to be hyperbolic discounters. In addition, it is found that hyperbolic discounters accumulate less wealth and are somewhat less likely than exponential discounters to utilize commitment devices to constrain their future choices.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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