Preferences and constraints: The value of economic games for studying human sociality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We argue that classic economic games and their more recent extensions should continue to play a role in fieldworkers’ methodological toolkits. Economic games are not replacements for observational and self-report studies of behavior, but rather complements to them: While observational and self-report data measure individuals’ behavior subject to the constraints of cultural institutions, competing demands on their resources, and even self-presentation bias, economic games can be designed to measure comparatively unconstrained individual preferences, or to selectively introduce constraints, providing insight into how individuals would behave under certain conditions if they had the opportunity. By using a combination of experiments, observation, and self-report, anthropologists, economists, and psychologists can continue to improve their understanding of how preferences translate into “real world” behavior, and how “real world” constraints influence preferences, across diverse human societies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".