MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2616951861 · doi:10.1111/1468-0106.12225

Second‐Best Theory: Ageing well at Sixty

2017· article· en· W2616951861 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 institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommodityEconomicsNormativeGovernment (linguistics)Public policyWelfarePublic economicsPolicy analysisGeneral equilibrium theoryMicroeconomicsNeoclassical economicsEconomic growthPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We summarize the evolution of the theory of second best since the original contribution of Richard Lipsey and Kelvin Lancaster. Early studies investigated the optimality of piecemeal first‐best policy in controlled sectors when distortions exist elsewhere. The applied welfare economics approach of Arnold Harberger and its embodiment in cost–benefit analysis incorporated second‐best analysis into the evaluation of public programs. Modern second‐best analysis emphasizes policy‐making in a distorted economy where distortions reflect either constraints on government policy instruments or features of the economic environment such as limited government information. This is illustrated using optimal commodity and income taxation and its refinements to intertemporal and uncertain settings. Second‐best analysis is a defining feature of modern normative public economics.

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 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.882
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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.082

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.204 · 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