Holt and Laury measures and insurance decisions: A same risk attitude?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’attitude face au risque est un élément fondamental de la théorie de la décision et, en particulier, de la théorie de l’assurance. À l’aide d’une expérimentation fondée sur un modèle théorique, cet article examine si les attitudes face au risque (aversion ou goût pour le risque) obtenues à l’aide de la procédure de Holt et Laury [2002] sont corrélées avec celles inférées des décisions d’assurance en laboratoire. Nos résultats mettent en évidence la grande cohérence des attitudes au risque évaluées à l’aide de ces deux procédures : pour plus des deux tiers des sujets rationnels, les deux mesures conduisent à la même affectation. De plus, l’intensité de l’aversion ou du goût pour le risque mesurée par la procédure de Holt et Laury fournit une bonne estimation du montant de couverture demandée. JEL Codes: C91, D81.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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 teacher head, 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".