拼写蜜蜂

IF 2.3 2区 文学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL American Behavioral Scientist Pub Date : 2024-03-28 DOI:10.1177/00027642241237929
James W. Boudreau, Jeremy Kettering, Shane D. Sanders
{"title":"拼写蜜蜂","authors":"James W. Boudreau, Jeremy Kettering, Shane D. Sanders","doi":"10.1177/00027642241237929","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this note, we consider a form of competition in which two contestants face separate sequences of independent trials. The contestant with the longer sequence of successful trials wins. However, since the trials are independent, there may be a form of paradox whereby the loser is able to pass all of the trials in the winner’s sequence, whereas the winner could not have overcome two or more trials in the loser’s sequence. We refer to this as the spelling bee paradox and explore its likelihood in simple settings. JEL Classification Codes: C46, D74, Z29.","PeriodicalId":48360,"journal":{"name":"American Behavioral Scientist","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Spelling Bees\",\"authors\":\"James W. Boudreau, Jeremy Kettering, Shane D. Sanders\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00027642241237929\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this note, we consider a form of competition in which two contestants face separate sequences of independent trials. The contestant with the longer sequence of successful trials wins. However, since the trials are independent, there may be a form of paradox whereby the loser is able to pass all of the trials in the winner’s sequence, whereas the winner could not have overcome two or more trials in the loser’s sequence. We refer to this as the spelling bee paradox and explore its likelihood in simple settings. JEL Classification Codes: C46, D74, Z29.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48360,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Behavioral Scientist\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Behavioral Scientist\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00027642241237929\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Behavioral Scientist","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00027642241237929","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在本说明中,我们考虑了一种竞争形式,即两名参赛者分别面对不同的独立试验序列。成功试验序列较长的参赛者获胜。然而,由于试验是独立的,可能会出现一种悖论,即失败者能够通过获胜者序列中的所有试验,而获胜者却无法通过失败者序列中的两个或更多试验。我们将其称为 "拼字蜜蜂悖论",并探讨其在简单设置中的可能性。JEL 分类代码:C46, D74, Z29C46, D74, Z29.
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Spelling Bees
In this note, we consider a form of competition in which two contestants face separate sequences of independent trials. The contestant with the longer sequence of successful trials wins. However, since the trials are independent, there may be a form of paradox whereby the loser is able to pass all of the trials in the winner’s sequence, whereas the winner could not have overcome two or more trials in the loser’s sequence. We refer to this as the spelling bee paradox and explore its likelihood in simple settings. JEL Classification Codes: C46, D74, Z29.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
3.10%
发文量
190
期刊介绍: American Behavioral Scientist has been a valuable source of information for scholars, researchers, professionals, and students, providing in-depth perspectives on intriguing contemporary topics throughout the social and behavioral sciences. Each issue offers comprehensive analysis of a single topic, examining such important and diverse arenas as sociology, international and U.S. politics, behavioral sciences, communication and media, economics, education, ethnic and racial studies, terrorism, and public service. The journal"s interdisciplinary approach stimulates creativity and occasionally, controversy within the emerging frontiers of the social sciences, exploring the critical issues that affect our world and challenge our thinking.
期刊最新文献
Satellite Political Movements: How Grassroots Activists Bolster Trump and Bolsonaro in the United States and Brazil Reading the Tea Leaves: Question Wording and Public Support for the Tea Party Movement Articulations of StrongMen: A Knowledge Cultural Sociology of Recognizing Autocratic Practices in Russian, Turkish, and Global Regimes Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing: The Autocratic Subversion of Brazil’s Fourth Estate Transforming the Legacy of Colonial and Racialized Inequities in Childcare Systems in the United States: (Re)Framing Futures Through Black Feminist Thought
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1