MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2945706980 · doi:10.5539/res.v11n2p80

Evolution of the Common Belief That “Things Have Costs”: Psychological Perspective

2019· article· en· W2945706980 on OpenAlexfundvenueno aff
Sergei Peregonchuk

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of European Studies · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInnovations in Educational Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Manitoba
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)CriticismEpistemologyCore (optical fiber)PerceptionPsychologyPositive economicsEconomicsSociologyPhilosophyComputer sciencePolitical scienceLawArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The paper examines critically the current method of teaching one of the core topics in Introductory Economics. The area of my criticism of the traditional Production Costs theory as it had been currently taught in many universities across the world is that it inevitably creates in the minds of beginning students a false perception that “things have costs”. The Economic Way of Thinking as the alternative approach to the traditional way of teaching Introductory Economics disarms this popular idea and affirms that “only actions have costs”. The discussion is done in the form of dialogue between the author and a reader.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.916
Threshold uncertainty score0.356

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.123
GPT teacher head0.485
Teacher spread0.361 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of European StudiesSame topicInnovations in Educational MethodsFrench-language works237,207