Multi-agents modelling of EV purchase willingness based on questionnaires
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
Traditional experimental economics methods often consume enormous resources of qualified human participants, and the inconsistence of a participant’s decisions among repeated trials prevents investigation from sensitivity analyses. The problem can be solved if computer agents are capable of generating similar behaviors as the given participants in experiments. An experimental economics based analysis method is presented to extract deep information from questionnaire data and emulate any number of participants. Taking the customers’ willingness to purchase electric vehicles (EVs) as an example, multi-layer correlation information is extracted from a limited number of questionnaires. Multi-agents mimicking the inquired potential customers are modelled through matching the probabilistic distributions of their willingness embedded in the questionnaires. The authenticity of both the model and the algorithm is validated by comparing the agent-based Monte Carlo simulation results with the questionnaire-based deduction results. With the aid of agent models, the effects of minority agents with specific preferences on the results are also discussed.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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