MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6996242229

A Reward-Earning Quaternary Random Walk on a Parity Dial

2021· article· en· W6996242229 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueIUScholarWorks (Indiana University) · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Treatment and Access
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRandom walkCoin flippingNode (physics)Quarter (Canadian coin)Parity (physics)Clockwise
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A casino offers a game which involves a symmetric quaternary random walk on a parity \ndial with twelve nodes labeled as (1, 11, 3, 9, 5, 7, 6, 8, 4, 10, 2, 0), reading clockwise. A player \nbegins at Node 0; she tosses a copper coin to decide whether to move clockwise (if heads) \nor counterclockwise (if tails); simultaneously she tosses a silver coin to decide whether she \nwill move one step (if tails) or two steps (if heads) in the direction determined by the copper \ncoin. Whenever she lands at a new node she is said to have ‘captured’ it. If a player \nintends to capture c nodes and she wishes to toss the coins k times, then her admission fee \nis (25 + 25c + k) cents (one quarter to play, one quarter per node to capture and one penny \nper toss). The game ends as soon as either c nodes (other than Node 0) are captured or k \ntosses are over, whichever event happens earlier; and the player earns as many nickels as the \nsum of the labels of the captured nodes. How should the player determine c and k? \nThe player’s optimal choices can be derived from the theory of stochastic processes. \nAlternatively, optimal choices can be anticipated through a computer simulation. Lessons \nlearned from the game empower entrepreneurs and consumers behave optimally to determine \nwhen and how to intervene to benefit from an opportunity and/or to prevent a catastrophe.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.095

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0280.003

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIUScholarWorks (Indiana University)Same topicMental Health Treatment and AccessFrench-language works237,207