MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2185701939

Human Recognition and Economic Development: An Introduction and Theoretical Model

2013· preprint· en· W2185701939 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Tony Castleman

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford University Research Archive (ORA) (University of Oxford) · 2013
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIncome, Poverty, and Inequality
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBundesministerium für Wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und EntwicklungAustralian Agency for International DevelopmentGeorg-August-Universität GöttingenUniversity of OxfordInternational Development Research CentreEconomic and Social Research CouncilInternational Fine Particle Research InstituteUnited Nations Development ProgrammeRobertson FoundationUNICEF
KeywordsReceiptHuman development (humanity)Computer scienceData scienceArtificial intelligenceCognitive scienceCognitive psychologyPsychologyEconomicsEconomic growth
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>This paper introduces the concept of human recognition, defined as the extent to which an individual is acknowledged by others to be of inherent value by virtue of being a fellow human being. Following a qualitative exposition of human recognition, a formal model is presented that describes provision and receipt of human recognition, its contribution to utility, its effects on health, and its role in development programs. Key predictions from the model are that human recognition receipt has a positive, causal relationship with utility and health outcomes; that multiple equilibria for human recognition can exist; and that only accounting for human recognition’s instrumental effects on material outcomes while ignoring its direct, psychic effects on utility leads to suboptimal programs. By defining and formally modeling human recognition and its role in economic development for the first time, the paper identifies a new component of economic development and offers an example of how such intangible components can be formally modeled.</p>

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.256
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.236 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations4
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOxford University Research Archive (ORA) (University of Oxford)Same topicIncome, Poverty, and InequalityFrench-language works237,207