Measuring Probabilistic Risk Attitudes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We introduce formal measures for two psychological factors of probabilistic risk attitudes: attractiveness (motivational factor) and discriminability (cognitive factor). Unlike previous approaches that relied on heuristic proxies, our measures precisely capture these two fundamental factors. Our measures are mathematically tractable, robust to discontinuities, such as in the NEO-additive case, and flexible to be applied to any weighting function, as well as to both small and large probabilities. Additionally, through detailed numerical analysis, we examine to what extent existing weighting function parameters capture the two factors: attractiveness and discriminability. Finally, using these new measures, we provide a formal understanding of the independence between motivational and cognitive factors. This paper was accepted by Jack Soll, behavioral economics and decision analysis. Funding: The research was made possible by the financial support from Brazilian Agency of Research and Innovation (Finep), Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - Brasil (CAPES) [Grants PROJ–CAPES PRINT 1033427P] and PUC-Rio. Supplemental Material: The data files are available at https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2024.04870 .
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 | 0.006 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".