MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2064320019 · doi:10.1111/0002-9092.00172

Preference Uncertainty in Non‐Market Valuation: A Fuzzy Approach

2001· article· en· W2064320019 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

VenueAmerican Journal of Agricultural Economics · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic and Environmental Valuation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsValuation (finance)Probabilistic logicFuzzy logicContingent valuationEconomicsDecision makerEconometricsFuzzy numberMathematical economicsComputer scienceFuzzy setMicroeconomicsMathematicsWillingness to payOperations researchArtificial intelligenceFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this article, we consider uncertain preferences for non‐market goods, but we move away from a probabilistic representation of uncertainty and propose the use of fuzzy contingent valuation. We assume that a decision maker never fully knows her own utility function and we treat utility as a fuzzy number. The methodology is illustrated using data on forest valuation in Sweden. Fuzzy contingent valuation provides estimates of resource value in the form of a fuzzy number and includes estimates obtained using a standard probabilistic approach.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.217
Threshold uncertainty score0.693

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.139 · 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