MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2073789589 · doi:10.4236/tel.2012.24068

Revenue Sharing in Hierarchical Organizations: A New Interpretation of the Generalized Banzhaf Value

2012· article· en· W2073789589 on OpenAlexaff
Roland Pongou, Bertrand Tchantcho, Narcisse Tedjeugang

Bibliographic record

VenueTheoretical Economics Letters · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicGame Theory and Voting Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHierarchyRevenueAggregate (composite)ProductivityEarningsShapley valueValue (mathematics)Set (abstract data type)Function (biology)Hierarchical organizationTask (project management)Production (economics)Interpretation (philosophy)MicroeconomicsMathematical economicsEconomicsComputer scienceMathematicsGame theoryStatisticsManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines the distribution of earnings in a new model of hierarchical multi-task organizations. Each such organization is defined by a finite set of workers and tasks together with a production function that maps each allocation of workers to the tasks into an aggregate output. Tasks are ordered in degree of importance so that aggregate output increases when a worker climbs up the organization ladder. We show that the generalized Banzhaf value proposed by Freixas [1] can be used as a theory of revenue sharing in such organizations, and provide a new interpretation and formulation of this sharing rule, proving that a worker's pay is proportional to the difference between his marginal productivity at the top level and at the bottom level of the hierarchy summed over all the possible configurations of the organization. This new formulation also facilitates computation.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.006
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTheoretical Economics LettersSame topicGame Theory and Voting SystemsFrench-language works237,207