MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132284017 · doi:10.1287/ited.1120.0090

An Educational Game in Collaborative Logistics

2013· article· en· W2132284017 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueINFORMS Transactions on Education · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicQuality and Supply Management
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNegotiationComputer scienceProfit (economics)Game theoryGame DeveloperNon-cooperative gameSequential gameScreening gameCooperative game theorySimulations and games in economics educationOperations researchGame designKnowledge managementMicroeconomicsEconomicsMultimediaSociologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We describe an educational game in collaborative logistics. The game is based on an award-winning application in cost allocation in transportation. The purpose of the game is to acquire an understanding of negotiation, coalition building, and cost/profit sharing when the players have different powers and hold different levels of information. The game is played with each player representing a single company. The challenge for the players is to find an efficient coalition and to share the benefits and costs of the collaboration. We describe the underlying case study, review basic concepts in game theory, outline the teaching case, and discuss experiences from running the game in several countries and with students in business, engineering, and forestry.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.533
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.257 · 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