A Partnership Solution to the Tragedy of the Commons
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
"This paper introduces a management regime that would maintain common property rights by allowing resource users to harvest on their own but to share their extraction outcome with a given number of other resource users. The developed partnership approach makes use of the shirking \nincentives in output sharing partnerships to counterbalance the incentive to supply excessive effort that prevails in noncooperative common property extraction. A first-best solution is derived and the \nsocially optimal partnership size and number of partnerships for a fixed number of harvesters is determined for different conjectural variations. The results provide a new interpretation of conjectural \nvariations in the supply of harvesting effort as it establishes some links to community boundaries, social capital and resource characteristics. The implication of community boundaries and authority systems as well as resource boundaries on proper sharing arrangements is explored in various applications of the partnership solution that can consist of randomly assigning resource users to teams after every \nharvesting round, having the same team members for several rounds or joining community members in partnerships."
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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