MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3121210304 · doi:10.1287/moor.2015.0736

Local Utility and Multivariate Risk Aversion

2016· article· en· W3121210304 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematics of Operations Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultivariate statisticsMultivariate analysisExpected utility hypothesisIndependence (probability theory)Risk aversion (psychology)Risk measureMeasure (data warehouse)Rank (graph theory)Extension (predicate logic)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We revisit Machina’s local utility as a tool to analyze attitudes to multivariate risks. We show that for nonexpected utility maximizers choosing between multivariate prospects, aversion to multivariate mean preserving increases in risk is equivalent to the concavity of the local utility functions, thereby generalizing Machina’s result [Machina M (1982) “Expected utility” analysis without the independence axiom. Econometrica 50:277–323]. To analyze comparative risk attitudes within the multivariate extension of rank dependent expected utility of Galichon and Henry [Galichon A, Henry M (2012) Dual theory of choice with multivariate risks. J. Econom. Theory 147:1501–1516], we extend Quiggin’s monotone mean and utility preserving increases in risk and show that the useful characterization given in Landsberger and Meilijson [Landsberger M, Meilijson I (1994) Comonotone allocations, Bickel-Lehmann dispersion and the Arrow-Pratt measure of risk aversion. Ann. Oper. Res. 52:97–106] still holds in the multivariate case.

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.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.981
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.375
GPT teacher head0.517
Teacher spread0.142 · 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