MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W238568077 · doi:10.4324/9780203358061-15

Ambiguity made precise: a comparative foundation

2004· book-chapter· en· W238568077 on OpenAlexaff
Paolo Ghirardato, Mássimo Marinacci

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFoundation (evidence)AmbiguityComputer scienceHistoryArchaeologyProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this chapter we propose and characterize a formal definition of ambiguity aversion for a class of preference models which encompasses the most popular models developed to allow ambiguity attitude in decision making. Using this notion, we define and characterize ambiguity of events for ambiguity averse or loving preferences. Our analysis is based on a fully “subjective” framework with no extraneous devices (like a roulette wheel, or a rich set of exogenously “unambiguous” events). This yields a definition that can be fruitfully usedwith any preference in the mentioned class, though it imposes a limitation in the definition’s ability of distinguishing “real” ambiguity aversion from other behavioral traits that have been observed experimentally.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.737
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0320.028

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 head0.350
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.096 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations6
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDecision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsFrench-language works237,207