Restricted versus Unrestricted Choice in Labeled Choice Experiments: Exploring the Trade‐Offs of Expanding Choice Dimensions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A key methodological question in choice experiments is to identify whether there is a difference in choice behavior, and subsequent value estimates, when choices are constrained to mutually exclusive alternatives in labeled experiments compared to when combinations of alternatives are available. This issue is important when policy management options are represented in labeled experiments, as it is easier to represent management options as mutually exclusive choice alternatives, but combinations of management options may be more relevant in the policy world. This issue is tested with a case study application to the Great Barrier Reef in Australia. A split‐sample experiment is implemented where one survey includes four labeled alternatives: a status quo option and three specific policy management options (restricted choice). The other survey provides respondents with an unrestricted choice set by including a fifth alternative choice, labeled as “a combination of management options.” The results provide some evidence that adding a combination policy alternative does change the way that respondents view trade‐offs, but that choice behavior and subsequent value estimates are consistent across the two survey formats. Une question d’ordre méthodologique importante se pose dans le cas de la méthode des choix discrets expérimentaux : déterminer s’il existe ou non une différence dans les choix des répondants et dans les estimations subséquentes lorsque les alternatives proposées sont mutuellement exclusives et lorsque les alternatives proposées peuvent être des combinaisons d’alternatives mutuellement exclusives. Il s’agit d’un point important lorsque les options de gestion de politiques figurent dans des expériences avec des alternatives nongénériques étant donné qu’il est plus facile de présenter les stratégies de gestion comme des alternatives mutuellement exclusives, bien que les combinaisons de stratégies de gestion puissent être plus pertinentes pour les décideurs. Nous avons vérifié ce point à l’aide d’une étude de cas appliquée à la grande barrière de corail (Great Barrier Reef) de l’Australie. Nous avons utilisé la technique de l’échantillon fractionné : un premier sondage comprenait quatre choix distincts : conservation du statu quo et trois alternatives de gestion de politiques (choix contraint); un deuxième sondage comprenait un choix complet d’alternatives incluant une cinquième alternative intitulée « combinaison de stratégies de gestion ». Les résultats semblent indiquer que l’ajout d’une telle alternative influence la perception des répondants à l’égard de la valorisation des attributs, mais que les choix des répondants et les estimations subséquentes se ressemblent dans les deux formules de sondage.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.247 | 0.471 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".