Bibliographic record
Abstract
Early neoclassical economists presumed an element of irrationality in the context of intertemporal decision making. W.S. Jevons, Irving Fisher, Alfred Marshall, and A.C. Pigou observed a preference for present over future consumption, and each took this as evidence that consumer ‘foresight’ or ‘will power’ was defective. The labouring classes were said to discount future consumption to reflect uncertainty, and such discounting is regarded as ‘rational.’ But each of these economists focused on an additional, and purportedly ‘irrational,’ reason for discounting: ‘impatience.’ Consumers are thus said to make persistent miscalculations when it comes to decisions involving time. Irrationalité et choix intertemporel dans les débuts de la pensée néo‐classique. Les premiers économistes néo‐classiques présumaient qu'il y avait un brin d'irrationalité dans le processus de décision intertemporel. W.S. Jevons, Irving Fisher, Alfred Marshall et A.C. Pigou ont observé une certaine préférence de la consommation présente par rapport à la consommation future et en ont déduit que le consommateur manquait de ‘prévoyance’ et de ‘volonté.’ On suggérait que les classes travailleuses escomptaient leur consommation future à cause de l'incertitude ‐ ce qui était considé comme rationnel. Mais chacun de ces économistes faisait aussi appel à une raison additionnelle pour escompter la consommation future ‐ l'impatience ‐ un motif jugé irrationnel. On en concluait que les consommateurs faisaient des erreurs persistantes de calcul quand ils prenaient des décisions intertemporelles.
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 | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".