How Long Does It Last to Systematically Make Bad Decisions? An Agent-Based Application for Dividend Policy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bad decisions have harmful effects on the quality of human life and an increase of their duration expands these undesirable effects. Systematic bad decisions related to dividend policy can affect the investors’ quality of life in the long-term. We propose an agent-based model for the estimation of the duration of systematically making bad decisions, with an application on dividend policy. We propose an algorithm that can be used in modelling the interaction between different classes of shareholders and for predicting this duration. We perform numerical simulations based on this model using NetLogo 6.0.4. We prove that, as a result of agents’ interaction, in some conditions, the duration of systematically making bad decisions can be very long: some numerical simulations suggest that, in some circumstances, this duration can significantly exceed the human lifetime. Additionally, in some conditions, the company can fail before the power is switched. This duration can increase dramatically if the shareholders have a great level of trust in the management’s decisions. As an implication, a greater concern for the quality of financial education, and more performant instruments for controlling the power’s decisions are required.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".