A Common Pool Resource Experiment with a Dynamic Stock Externality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The common pool resource environment introduced by Ostrom, Walker and Gardner may be interpreted as the steady state of a fully dynamic model in which rentmaximizing fishermen exploit biomass which evolves according to a logistic growth function. We conduct a laboratory experiment to compare observed behavior in such a dynamic environment with behavior in the static environment that is its steady state. We focus on the effect of free form, non-binding communication in the two environemts. We hypothesize that the complexity of the dynamic environment will reduce the ability of fishermen to cooperate in reducing fishing effort. We run 12 sessions with groups of eight subjects in a 2x2 design benchmarks of static and dynamic efficiency, Nash equilibrium, and open access (zero profit) equilibrium. Contrary to our expectations, subjects in some of the dynamic sessions were clearly able to restrain harvest and build up stocks. Within session variation in effort is higher in the dynamic environment. Analysis of mean effort and efficiency across sessions shows a significant communication effect, no significant model specification effect, and no strong evidence of any interaction effect.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".