MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3087846925 · doi:10.1007/s10683-020-09678-4

Is the Allais paradox due to appeal of certainty or aversion to zero?

2020· article· en· W3087846925 on OpenAlexaff
Elif Incekara‐Hafalir, Eungsik Kim, Jack Douglas Stecher

Bibliographic record

VenueExperimental Economics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersUniversity of Technology SydneyCarnegie Mellon University
KeywordsCertaintyZero (linguistics)EconomicsNothingMathematical economicsPhenomenonContrast (vision)Prospect theoryPositive economicsMicroeconomicsPhysicsPhilosophyEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We provide a novel but intuitive explanation for expected utility violations found in the Allais paradox: individuals are commonly averse to receiving nothing. We call this phenomenon the zero effect. Our laboratory experiments show support for the zero effect. By contrast, the evidence for the certainty effect is weak to nonexistent.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.067
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.067
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.009
Scholarly communication0.0030.007
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.200
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations13
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExperimental EconomicsSame topicDecision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsFrench-language works237,207