MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3125771274

Lottery Decisions and Probability Weighting Function

2001· article· en· W3125771274 on OpenAlexaff
Yves Alarie, Georges Dionne

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics
Canadian institutionsHEC MontréalUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLotteryWeightingArgument (complex analysis)Function (biology)Mathematical economicsPreferenceEconometricsComputer scienceMathematicsEconomicsStatistics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article analyzes the implications of basic lottery tests for the probability weighting function w(p). We first show that the w(p) function with one argument cannot accommodate three basic tests of lottery choice. We also discuss in detail the links between the w(p) function with one argument and the preference reversal paradox. In the last section we propose an evaluation function that accommodates the restrictions imposed by the tests and we provide an example of such function. Copyright 2001 by Kluwer Academic Publishers

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.965
Threshold uncertainty score0.555

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Citations4
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicDecision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsFrench-language works237,207