MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2098507972 · doi:10.1080/20445911.2015.1055274

Rapid makes risky: Time pressure increases risk seeking in decisions from experience

2015· article· en· W2098507972 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cognitive Psychology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersAlberta Gambling Research Institute, University of CalgaryNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRisk-seekingOutcome (game theory)PsychologyValue (mathematics)Social psychologyActuarial scienceEconomicsMicroeconomicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Time pressure is a common constraint on many real-world decisions, such as those made by traders placing orders in the stock market, bidders in an auction, or gamblers at a casino. Many of these situations also involve elements of risk or uncertainty. Previous research has mostly found that time pressure leads to more risky choices. These previous studies, however, have examined decisions made from probabilities that were explicitly described, rather than learned through experienced outcomes. Here we tested how time pressure influences decisions from experience, while manipulating outcome value. Participants under greater time pressure chose risky options more often, independent of outcome value. Our results suggest that, as with decisions from description, time pressure moderately increases risk seeking in decisions from experience.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.863
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.200
GPT teacher head0.458
Teacher spread0.258 · 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