MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4243953936 · doi:10.4324/9780203935361-21

Spies and swords: Behavior in environments with costly monitoring and sanctioning

2007· book-chapter· en· W4243953936 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicOpinion Dynamics and Social Influence
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer securityComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Depletion of resources is a serious global concern. Fisheries on both Canadian coasts have, at various times, been closed and thousands of people put out of work. Excessive numbers of whale watchers have led to a reduction in the number of whales returning to – and consequently declining biodiversity of – the Bay of Fundy (Hawkins, 1998: B1). Groundwater in the American Midwest is used faster than it is replenished. Fuelwood lots and grazing lands suffer from severe depletion around the world. To understand that these issues are a problem, one need only look at the socio-economic impacts upon the relevant population of users. To understand how these issues became a problem, however, the interaction between individuals, groups, and the resource must be examined. In this chapter, the specific effects of costly monitoring of individuals and the role of endogenous sanctions are examined.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.438
Threshold uncertainty score0.623

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicOpinion Dynamics and Social InfluenceFrench-language works237,207