MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3015022737 · doi:10.5539/ass.v16n4p42

A Study on “Value” Concept of the Austrian School

2020· article· en· W3015022737 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yu Feng

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Social Science · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic Theory and Institutions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMarginal utilityValue (mathematics)Value theoryPremiseEconomicsNeed theoryPositive economicsMicroeconomicsMaslow's hierarchy of needsEpistemologyPsychologySocial psychologyMathematicsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The marginal utility theory of Austrian School is an important value theory in western economics. Need theory is the basis and premise of value theory. Need, which is equivalent to desire, has two specific connotations: "one of many needs" and "feelings of a certain need". The contribution and innovation of the need theory of Austrian School lies in that it puts forward two classifications of needs through studying the significance of needs, points out that value is only related to the classification of degrees of needs, reveals the general rule that the importance of one need decreases gradually with the increase in satisfaction, and puts forward the core concept of "marginal utility". The Austrian School studies the quality and quantity of value with human needs or desires as the measure of value. In the qualitative aspect of value, whether people's needs can be met is the direct basis for judging the existence of value, and whether it can improve people's life and welfare is the fundamental reason to judge the value of goods. In terms of the quantity of value, economists of the Austrian School propose the principle that marginal utility determines the value of the last unit of goods, completely solve Adam Smith's value paradox and achieve the transcendence of subjective utility theory.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.925
Threshold uncertainty score0.388

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Social ScienceSame topicEconomic Theory and InstitutionsFrench-language works237,207