Bibliographic record
Abstract
RankR demand systems that are either conditioned on some good (such as durables) or are separable from that good, are shown to be identical to unconditional demand systems having rank R or R+ 1. More generally, the rank of a conditional demand system or a separable subsystem is a lower bound on the rank of the corresponding demand system over all goods. This relationship is applied to reinterpret some existing empirical results regarding rank, conditioning goods, and separability. Rang, séparabilité et demandes conditionnelles. On montre que des systèmes de demande de rang R qui sont conditionnés par rapport à un bien (des biens durables par exemple) ou sont séparables de ce bien sont identiques aux systèmes de demande inconditionnels de rang R ou R+ 1. Plus généralement, le rang d’un système de demande conditionnel ou d’un sous‐système séparable est une limite inférieure au rang du système de demande correspondant pour tous les biens. Cette relation est utilisée pour ré‐interpréter quelques résultats empiriques pour ce qui est du rang, des biens conditionnants et la séparabilité.
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 | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 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".