MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2795986334 · doi:10.1287/mnsc.2017.2931

The (Neural) Dynamics of Stochastic Choice

2018· article· en· W2795986334 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

VenueManagement Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObservablePreferenceBounded functionEconometricsDiscrete choiceClass (philosophy)Stochastic modellingDynamics (music)Stochastic processContrast (vision)Computer scienceMathematicsMathematical economicsEconomicsStatisticsArtificial intelligencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The standard framework for modeling stochastic choice, the random utility model, is agnostic about the temporal dynamics of the decision process. In contrast, a general class of bounded accumulation models from psychology and neuroscience explicitly relate decision times to stochastic choice behavior. This article demonstrates that a random utility model can be derived from the general class of bounded accumulation models, and characterizes how the resulting distribution of random utility depends on response time. This relationship can bias the estimation of structural preference parameters. The bias can be alleviated via the inclusion of standard observables directly in the econometric specification, or through incorporating novel observables such as response time or neurobiological data. Examples of estimating risk and brand preferences are pursued. This paper was accepted by Matthew Shum, marketing.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.975
Threshold uncertainty score0.726

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.316 · 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