An Examination of Human Fast and Frugal Heuristic Decisions for Truckload Spot Pricing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: One of several logistics contexts in which pricing decisions are made involves truckload carriers using reverse auctions to bid for prices they want for their transportation services while operating under uncertainty about factors such as their (i) operations costs and (ii) rivals’ bids. This study’s main purpose is to explore humans’ use of fast and frugal heuristics (FFHs) to navigate those uncertainties. In particular, the study clarifies the logic, theoretical underpinnings, and performance of human FFHs. Methods: The study uses behavior experiments as its core research method. Results: The study’s key findings are that humans use rational FFHs, yet, despite the rationality, human decisions yield average profits that are 35% below profits from price optimization models. The study also found that human FFHs yield very unstable outcomes: the FFH coefficient of variation in profit is twice as large as price optimization. Novel contributions inherent in these findings include (a) clarifying connections between spot market auction pricing and behavioral theories and (b) adding truckload spot markets to the literature’s contexts for measuring performance gaps between human FFHs and optimization models. Conclusions: The contributions have implications for practical purposes that include gauging spot pricing decisions made under constraints such as limited access to price optimization tools.
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 | 0.005 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".