MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4378215487 · doi:10.1037/xge0001380

How well do laboratory-derived estimates of time preference predict real-world behaviors? Comparisons to four benchmarks.

2023· article· en· W4378215487 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel M. Bartels, Ye Li, Soaham Bharti

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Psychology General · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychological and Temporal Perspectives Research
Canadian institutionsBooth University College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPredictive powerPreferencePsycINFOPsychologyTime preferenceVariance (accounting)Predictive valueSample (material)Social psychologyEconometricsStatisticsMedicineMEDLINEMathematicsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

= 55) to predict the variation in the relationship between time preference and behaviors, and although they are reasonably well-calibrated, these experts tend to overestimate the predictive power of time preference estimates. We discuss implications of invoking time preference as a predictor and/or determinant of behaviors with delayed consequences in light of our findings. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.843
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.111
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.319 · 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.

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

Citations17
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental Psychology GeneralSame topicPsychological and Temporal Perspectives ResearchFrench-language works237,207