MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2154742701 · doi:10.5555/2693848.2694063

Discrete choice, agent based and system dynamics simulation of health profession career paths

2014· article· en· W2154742701 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

VenueWinter Simulation Conference · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic and Environmental Valuation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceDiscrete choiceCertaintySystem dynamicsExplanatory powerHeteroscedasticityScale (ratio)EconometricsArtificial intelligenceMachine learningEconomicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Modelling real workforce choices accurately via Agent Based Models and System Dynamics requires input data on the actual preferences of individual agents. Often lack of data means that analysts can have an understanding of how agents move through the system, but not why, and when. Hybrid models incorporating discrete choice experiments (DCE) solve this. Unlike simplistic neoclassical economic models, DCEs build on 50 years of well-tested consumer theory that decomposes the utility (benefit) derived from the agent's preferred choice into that associated with its constituent parts, but also allows agents different degrees of certainty in their discrete choices (heteroscedasticity on the latent scale). We use DCE data in populating a System Dynamics/Agent Based Model -- one of choices of optometrists and their employers. It shows that low overall predictive power conceals heterogeneity in agents' preferences. Incorporating such preferences in our hybrid approach improves the model's explanatory power and accuracy.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.545
Threshold uncertainty score0.548

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.106
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.163 · 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