MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2989503433 · doi:10.4230/dagsemproc.06461.16

On Comparison of Mechanisms of Economic and Social Exchanges: The Times Model

2007· article· en· W2989503433 on OpenAlexaff
Gregory E. Kersten, Eva E. Chen, Dirk Neumann, Rustam Vahidov, Christof Weinhardt

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicGame Theory and Applications
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImplementationCommon value auctionNegotiationArgument (complex analysis)Computer scienceFocus (optics)Information systemInformation exchangeInstitutionConceptual frameworkSocial systemManagement scienceIndustrial organizationData scienceEconomicsMicroeconomicsArtificial intelligenceSociologyEngineeringSoftware engineeringTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An e-market system is a concrete implementation of a market institution; it embeds one or more exchange mechanisms. The mechanisms are – from the economic point of view – disembodied objects (models and procedures) which control access to and regulate execution of transactions. E-market systems are also information systems which are information and communication technologies artifacts. They interact with their users; have different features and tools for searching, processing and displaying information. This work puts forward an argument that the study of e-markets must incorporate both the behavioural economic as well as the information systems perspectives. To this end the paper proposes a conceptual framework that integrates the two. This framework is used to formulate a model, which incorporates the essential features of exchange mechanisms, as well as their implementations as IS artefacts. The focus of attention is on two classes of mechanisms, namely auctions and negotiations. They both may serve the same purpose and their various types have been embedded in many e-market systems.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.081

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.008
Scholarly communication0.0090.023
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.003

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 head0.165
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations3
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGame Theory and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207