MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2615999466 · doi:10.1111/1468-0106.12220

Generality Versus Context Specificity: First, Second and Third Best in Theory and Policy

2017· article· en· W2615999466 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePacific Economic Review · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFiscal Policy and Economic Growth
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeneralityStatus quoEconomicsContext (archaeology)Argument (complex analysis)WelfareContrast (vision)Positive economicsPoint (geometry)MicroeconomicsPublic economicsMathematical economicsMathematicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Second‐best theory established that a policy's effect on community welfare (or any other objective function) varies with its specific context. In contrast, Ng argues that fulfilling first‐best conditions piecemeal is optimal whenever the policy‐maker's information is insufficient to determine the direction of the change in the variable under consideration that will raise welfare, irrespective of the conditions in that market. It is argued in the present paper: (i) that Ng's own assumptions imply not that first‐best conditions should be established under these circumstances, but that the status quo should be maintained; (ii) that when Ng's key assumption is altered to be empirically relevant, all policy decisions become fully context‐specific; and (iii) that Woo's argument for accepting Ng's conclusions in spite of point (ii) is incorrect. The conclusion discusses valid uses of piecemeal welfare theory in spite of second best.

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.

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), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.624
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.219 · 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