MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2963498380 · doi:10.1093/ej/uez039

Testing the Random Utility Hypothesis Directly

2019· article· en· W2963498380 on OpenAlexaff
William J. McCausland, Clintin P. Davis‐Stober, Sanghyuk Park, Nicholas J. L. Brown

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Economic Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic and Environmental Valuation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExpected utility hypothesisBayes' theoremEconometricsSet (abstract data type)MathematicsStatisticsComputer scienceBayesian probability

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We test a set of inequalities in choice probabilities, shown to be necessary and sufficient for random utility by Falmagne (1978). We run an experiment in which each of 141 participants chooses six times from each doubleton or larger subset of a universe of five lotteries. We compute Bayes factors in favour of random utility, versus an alternative with unrestricted choice probabilities. There is strong evidence that a large majority of participants satisfy random utility; however, there is strong evidence against random utility for four participants. Results are fairly robust to the choice of prior.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0050.012

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 head0.125
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.080 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
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

Citations27
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Economic JournalSame topicEconomic and Environmental ValuationFrench-language works237,207