MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404419615 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4924647/v1

Assessing private solutions to collective action problems in a 34-nation study

2024· preprint· en· W4404419615 on OpenAlexaff
Eugene Malthouse, Charlie Pilgrim, Daniel Sgroi, Michela Accerenzi, Antonio Alfonso, Rana Umair Ashraf, Max Baard, Sanchayan Banerjee, Alexis Belianin, Swagata Bhattacharjee, Mihir Kumar Bhattacharya, Pablo Brañas‐Garza, Juan-Camilo Cárdenas, Miguel Carriquiry, Syngjoo Choi, Gwen-Jiro Clochard, Eduardo Ezekiel Denzon, Bartłomiej Dessoulavy-Śliwiński, Giorgio Dini, Lu Dong, Antal Ertl, Filippos Exadaktylos, Emel Filiz‐Ozbay, Sarah Lynn Flecke, Fabio Galeotti, Teresa García‐Muñoz, Nobuyuki Hanaki, Dániel Horn, Lingbo Huang, Doruk İriş, Hubert János Kiss, Juliane Koch, Jaromír Kovářík, Osbert Kwarteng, Andreas Lange, Martí­n Leites, Ho-fung Leung, Wooyoung Lim, Meike Morren, Laila Nockur, Charles Yaw Okyere, Mayada Oudah, Ali Özkes, Lionel Page, Junghyun Park, Stefan Pfattheicher, Antonios Proestakis, Carlos Arturo Londoño Ramos, Muhammad Ashraf, Muhammad Ryan Sanjaya, Rene Schwaiger, Omar Sene, Fei Song, Sarah Spycher, Rostislav Staněk, Norman Tanchingco, Alessandro Tavoni, Vera L. te Velde, María José Vázquez-De Francisco, Martine Visser, Joseph Tao‐yi Wang, Wubin Weng, Katharina Werner, Amanda Wijayanti, Ralph Winkler, John Wooders, Ying Li, Wei Zhen, Thomas T. Hills

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCultural Differences and Values
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCollective actionAction (physics)BusinessPolitical scienceLaw and economicsSociologyPhysicsLawPoliticsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.578
GPT teacher head0.581
Teacher spread0.003 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueResearch SquareSame topicCultural Differences and ValuesFrench-language works237,207