MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2495331872 · doi:10.1017/ccol0521825512.007

Uncertainty and Incommensurabilities

2005· book-chapter· en· W2495331872 on OpenAlexaff
Charles Blackorby, Walter Bossert, David Donaldson

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2005
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Portfolio Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Part A In this chapter, we investigate several variations on our basic model. First, we incorporate uncertainty and extend our characterizations of the critical-level utilitarian (CLU) and number-sensitive critical-level utilitarian (NCLU) classes of population principles. The resulting classes are called ex-ante CLU and ex-ante NCLU. Our theorems are variants and extensions of Harsanyi's (1955, 1977) well-known social-aggregation theorem. Additional axioms are used to extend fixed-population principles to the variable-population environment. Although Harsanyi used a single-profile setting, we investigate the multi-profile case but note that the single-profile approach could be extended to the variable population model as well. Second, we examine incommensurabilities in social rankings by employing social-decision functionals, which associate a quasi-ordering (rather than an ordering) on the set of alternatives with each utility profile. Several new axioms are used to characterize the critical-band generalized utilitarian class of principles. The band is an interval and, according to those principles, one alternative is at least as good as another if and only if it is at least as good according to critical-level generalized utilitarianism for all critical levels in the band. UNCERTAINTY The principles presented and discussed in Chapters 3 to 6 can be used to rank actions or combinations of institutional arrangements (including legal and educational ones), customs, and moral rules, taking account of the constraints of history and human nature. If each of these leads with certainty to a particular social alternative, they can be ranked with any welfarist principle. This approach does not make a strong distinction between ends and means: actions are embedded in the associated alternatives.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooksSame topicRisk and Portfolio OptimizationFrench-language works237,207