MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2763156786 · doi:10.3389/fnbeh.2017.00188

Can Neuroscience Assist Us in Constructing Better Patterns of Economic Decision-Making?

2017· review· en· W2763156786 on OpenAlexfundno aff
George Lăzăroiu, Aurel Pera, Ramona O. Ştefănescu-Mihăilă, Nela Mircică, Octav Neguriţă

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic and Technological Innovation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersLondon Metropolitan UniversityUniversity of New EnglandUniversity of Texas at ArlingtonChapman UniversityKennesaw State UniversityLinnéuniversitetetAppalachian State UniversityUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignNipissing UniversityBard CollegeUniversity of South FloridaMeiji UniversityUniversity of AkronUniversity of South AfricaUniversity of Miami
KeywordsNeuroeconomicsCognitionGRASPPsychologyCognitive scienceCognitive psychologyComputer scienceNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We draw on outstanding research (Sanfey et al., 2006; McCabe, 2008; Bernheim, 2009; Camerer, 2013; Radu and McClure, 2013; Declerck and Boone, 2016) to substantiate that neuroeconomics covers the investigation of the biological microfoundations of economic cognition and economic conduct, attempts to prove that a superior grasp of how choices are made brings about superior expectations regarding which options are selected, preserves the strictness of economic analysis in defining value-based decision, and associates imaging techniques with economic pattern to explain how individuals decide on a strategy taking into account various possible choices. Neuroeconomics is adequately prepared to regulate the notion of how choices are determined by mental states. The position that will be elaborated in this article is that neuroeconomic patterns are enabled and enhanced in descriptive capacity by psychological outcomes and substantiated in biological processes. Advancement in neuroeconomics takes place when outcomes from distinct procedures are coherent with an ordinary mechanistic clarification of what generates choice, construed by a computational pattern. We will develop this point further by proving that economics improves the concerted effort of neuroeconomics by using its observations in the various results that may stem from the planned and market interplays of diverse participants, and via a series of accurate, explicit, mathematical patterns to construe such interplays and results. Neuroeconomics experiments employ a mixture of brain imaging/stimulation tests advanced in the cognitive neurosciences and microeconomic systems/game theory tests advanced in the economic sciences. Our analyses indicate that neuroeconomics aims to employ the supplementary input gained from brain investigations, associated with the decision maker's selection, with the purpose of better grasping the cogitation process and to utilize the outcomes to enhance economic patterns.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
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: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.084

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.026
Scholarly communication0.0120.043
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0040.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.003

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 head0.151
GPT teacher head0.357
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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations29
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Behavioral NeuroscienceSame topicEconomic and Technological InnovationFrench-language works237,207