The Voluntary Provision of Public Goods under Varying Endowment Distributions: Experimental Evidence
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
"Field experience suggests that the management of a common property resource may be facilitated if there is a large stakeholder among the agents who are trying to manage the resource. The successful management of a common property resource can be viewed as the provision of a public good, for each user of the resource benefits from its proper management, and each has a private incentive to withdraw his contributions from the management of the resource.\n\n "Theory suggests that the distribution of individual resource endowments may affect the voluntary contributions individuals will make towards the provision of a public good (or maintenance of a common property resource). This paper presents the results of a series of laboratory sessions in which individuals are able to make voluntary contributions to an activity which will result in 'group' benefits (comparable to the maintenance of the common property resource). Five different distributions of endowments are studies. Preliminary results suggest that as the distribution of endowments becomes more equal, the total voluntary contributions towards the maintenance of the public good falls."
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it