MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2915782612 · doi:10.1093/oep/gpz021

Vote budgets and Dodgson’s method of marks

2019· article· en· W2915782612 on OpenAlexaff
Walter Bossert, Kotaro Suzumura

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford Economic Papers · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicGame Theory and Voting Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersMinistry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology
KeywordsVotingPreferenceMathematical economicsUpper and lower boundsEconomicsComputer scienceMicroeconomicsMathematicsPolitical scienceLawPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We examine voting rules that are inspired by Dodgson’s method of marks (to be distinguished from the procedure that is commonly referred to as Dodgson’s rule) by means of two criteria. Each voter decides how to allocate a vote budget (which is common to all voters, and need not be exhausted) to the candidates. Our first criterion is a richness condition: we demand that, for any possible preference ordering a voter may have, there is a feasible allocation of votes that reflects these preferences. A (tight) lower bound on the vote budget is established. Adding a strategy-proofness condition as a second criterion, we recommend that the vote budget be given by the lower bound determined in our first result.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.745
Threshold uncertainty score0.866

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOxford Economic PapersSame topicGame Theory and Voting SystemsFrench-language works237,207