MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2163442724 · doi:10.1142/s0217590805002104

THE APPROPRIATE CHOICE OF VALUATION MEASURE IN USUAL CASES OF LOSSES VALUED MORE THAN GAINS

2005· article· en· W2163442724 on OpenAlexaff
Jack L. Knetsch

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Singapore Economic Review · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeasure (data warehouse)Valuation (finance)EconometricsEconomicsVariation (astronomy)Value (mathematics)StatisticsMathematicsActuarial scienceComputer scienceFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

People's common propensity to value losses more than otherwise commensurate gains, gives rise to different values of positive and negative changes in entitlements depending on the measure used to assess them. A major implication of the differing valuations is a need to choose an appropriate measure for particular changes. The appropriate choice of measure appears to turn on the reference state that people use to weigh the values of gains and losses: the distinction between the compensating and equivalent variation measures of values. If people view the present state as expected and normal, then the compensating measures apply; the equivalent variation measures are appropriate if they view the changed state as the reference.

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 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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.988
Threshold uncertainty score0.486

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.299
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.157 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Singapore Economic ReviewSame topicDecision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsFrench-language works237,207