MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2201269917 · doi:10.1111/iere.12212

INFORMATION, RISK SHARING, AND INCENTIVES IN AGENCY PROBLEMS

2017· article· en· W2201269917 on OpenAlexaff
Jia Xie

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Economic Review · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicLaw, Economics, and Judicial Systems
Canadian institutionsBank of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOutcome (game theory)IncentivePrincipal (computer security)Agency (philosophy)MicroeconomicsRanking (information retrieval)Principal–agent problemContractible spaceOrder (exchange)Perfect informationMoral hazardRisk neutralInformation asymmetryInformation sharingEconomicsImperfectActuarial scienceBusinessRisk analysis (engineering)Computer scienceFinanceComputer securityMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article studies the use of information for incentives and risk sharing in agency problems. When the principal is risk neutral or the outcome is contractible, risk sharing is unnecessary or dealt with by a contract on the outcome, so information systems are used for incentives only. When the outcome is noncontractible, a risk‐averse principal relies on imperfect information for both incentives and risk sharing. Under the first‐order approach, this article relaxes Gjesdal's criterion for ranking information systems and finds conditions justifying the first‐order approach when the principal is risk averse and the outcome is noncontractible.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.078

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.012
Scholarly communication0.0070.009
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0050.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations5
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Economic ReviewSame topicLaw, Economics, and Judicial SystemsFrench-language works237,207