MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2528905136 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0164188

Runaway Competition: A Correction and Extension of Results for a Model of Competitive Helping

2016· article· en· W2528905136 on OpenAlexafffund
Erin Wild, M Cojocaru

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEvolutionary Game Theory and Cooperation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCompetition (biology)Extension (predicate logic)Computer scienceBiologyEcologyProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigate and generalize an existing model of competitive helping within a biological market, first introduced for a population of competing individuals in which one individual provides help to all others; the rest compete for the help available from this individual by providing help themselves. Our generalized model comprises two strategies in which each individual of a specific type provides the same amount of help as all other individuals of that type. Each individual's fitness function is dependent on this level of help, the cost of providing the help, and the fact that help is proportionally reciprocated by other individuals. Competitive helping occurs when individuals actively try to help more than other individuals. To assess the emergence of equilibrium help strategies as adopted by proportions of the population, we examine the competition over available help within two settings: replicator dynamics and agent-based numerical simulations. To move one step further in our generalization, we use the agent-based model to study the N-person competitive helping game, where all individuals in the population are heterogeneous with respect to help provided. Our results show that helping does not increase indefinitely with the population size, as concluded previously, and while there are some instances of an increase in help provided as a result of competition, this competition can be detrimental to all individuals and in most cases, one type simply gives up (thus evolving to a "no help" strategy). The degree to which an individual's help is reciprocated by the others in the population has strong implications in the long-term behaviour of equilibrium help levels of types of individuals (and of individuals themselves); these equilibrium help levels diverge from existing conjectures in current literature. Lastly, small amounts of passively provided (costless) help results in runaway competition among all individuals.

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)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.002

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 head0.268
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicEvolutionary Game Theory and CooperationFrench-language works237,207