MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7000392015

Exploring Heterogeneity in Common Pool Resource Experiments with Intelligent Agent Based Simulations

2009· article· en· W7000392015 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueDigital Library Of The Commons Repository (Indiana University) · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicExperimental Behavioral Economics Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsResource (disambiguation)Intelligent agentAgent-based modelMulti-agent systemWork (physics)Group (periodic table)Foundation (evidence)Investment (military)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Author's Abstract:
\n
\n"This work utilizes previously documented common pool resource experiments as a foundation for the construction of a series of computer simulations in which the individuals participating in the experiments are represented as separate intelligent agents. An intelligent agent is an autonomous, self-contained entity that resides within a virtual, computer-based, environment. In this study, agents are created to represent the individual participants in the CPR experiment and the resource that they share in common. By programming the agents with different strategies and endowments, the researcher can allow the agents to interact within a prespecified environment and observe the outcomes. These outcomes may include the performance of individual strategies in a specific environment, or the overall behavior of the group that emerges as a result of the numerous interactions of the individual agents. These models allow the researcher to observe the relative performance, at the individual and group level, of different combinations of individual strategies and to begin to draw connections between individual behaviors and group outcomes.
\n
\n"Group performance in heterogeneous simulations can vary significantly with minor changes in the initial parameters of the environment or the characteristics of the agents. Simulations which allow for simplified communication between agents show that a lock-in can occur in which the agents agree on a group wide investment strategy which may or may not be an optimal solution. Some general discussion of the results of these simulations is provided, including a comparison with some observations from experimental economics and game theory. Preliminary observations on the advantages and disadvantages of agent based simulation as a tool for the analysis of the commons dilemma and issues related to heterogeneity are provided, along with some suggestions for future directions in which this work might proceed."

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.615
Threshold uncertainty score0.532

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.190 · 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