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
We address the issues of unequal restroom access for women and LGBTQ+ individuals, known as the potty parity problem. We propose a utility model in which users consider gender identity, wait time, and safety concerns when choosing restrooms. We evaluate different layouts’ efficiency measured by the total utilities (as in the utilitarian principle) and assess their fairness using the measures of the minimum utility gain (as in the Rawlsian fairness) and the gap between maximum and minimum gains (as in the distributive fairness). When the population is sensitive to gender identity and safety concerns, although it may initially seem intuitive to assume that converting all restrooms to unisex facilities would be efficient and fair due to the pooling of servers and increased flexibility and perceived fairness due to all users standing in the same line, our findings demonstrate that this design can be neither efficient nor fair. In contrast, we show that converting some men’s restrooms to unisex can enhance both efficiency and fairness of access. This highlights that a moderate level of flexibility can outperform a fully flexible system. Moreover, conventional wisdom suggests that removing a restroom unit from the men’s room would negatively impact users from the men’s side. However, our analysis reveals a counterintuitive insight that such a change can lead to a Pareto improvement, benefiting all users involved. We also analytically explore additional benefits of unisex restrooms under different user behaviors and situations and present practically relevant numerical results to support our findings. This paper was accepted by Elena Katok, operations management. Funding: This work was supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada [Grant RGPIN-2021-04295]. Supplemental Material: The online appendices and data files are available at https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2021.04075 .
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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