MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2987569717

(Originally published in Public Choice (1994) 80: 23-34) - Efficiency and consistency in group decisions

2012· article· en· W2987569717 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tapan Biswas

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of Economic Analysis · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicGame Theory and Voting Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConsistency (knowledge bases)Group (periodic table)AxiomContext (archaeology)Mathematical economicsValue (mathematics)NormativeSet (abstract data type)Function (biology)Constraint (computer-aided design)Choice functionElement (criminal law)MathematicsEconometricsEconomicsMicroeconomicsComputer scienceStatisticsDiscrete mathematicsPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The paper introduces a concept of "efficiency set" in the context of group decisions and analyses its properties. If the set contains a single element, then the Borda rule finds it. Otherwise, the group needs a value function to choose from the efficient alternatives. Two value functions, with considerations for the number of participants who are badly affected by the choice, have been discussed. It turns out that the consistency axiom of group choice imposes a constraint, on the form of the value function, with questionable normative significance.

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)0.006
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.280
Threshold uncertainty score0.969

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of Economic AnalysisSame topicGame Theory and Voting SystemsFrench-language works237,207