| Title |
The relationship between the normalized gradient addition mechanism and quadratic voting
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Public Choice, May 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11127-017-0414-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Daniel Benjamin, Ori Heffetz, Miles Kimball, Derek Lougee |
| Abstract |
Quadratic Voting and the Normalized Gradient Addition mechanism are both social choice mechanisms that confront individuals with quadratic budget constraints, but they are applicable in different contexts. Adapting one or both to apply to the same context, this paper explores the relationship between these two mechanisms in three contexts: marginal adjustments of continuous policies, simultaneous voting on many public choices, and voting on a single public choice accompanied by private monetary consequences. In the process, we provide some formal analysis of Quadratic Voting when (instead of money) votes are paid for with abstract tokens that are equally distributed by the mechanism designer. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 8 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 8 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 25% |
| Researcher | 2 | 25% |
| Professor | 1 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 2 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 3 | 38% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 2 | 25% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 2 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 July 2017.
All research outputs
#18,555,330
of 22,981,247 outputs
Outputs from Public Choice
#1,057
of 1,192 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#236,560
of 310,775 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Public Choice
#13
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,981,247 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,192 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.8. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 310,775 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.