Focal Points and Economic Efficiency: The Role of Relative Label Salience
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Coordination games represent coordination problems that arise across social science disciplines. Focal points have been found to be an effective way to solve many of these coordination problems. We experimentally analyze the efficiency‐enhancing power of focal points in 2 × 2 Pareto‐ranked coordination games. We find that the power of focal labels, when attached to the Pareto‐efficient strategy, to promote efficiency critically depends upon the alternative strategy's label salience. When the relative salience of our focal labels is considerably weaker, focal labels mostly fail to raise expected efficiency beyond the mixed‐strategy prediction. But when the relative salience of our focal labels is markedly stronger, focal labels raise expected efficiency much beyond the mixed‐strategy prediction. Furthermore, we find that the efficiency‐enhancing power of focal labels decreases as a measure of risk‐dominance increases across games.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it