English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

In a comment to Cappelen, Hole, Sørensen, and Tungodden (2007b),Conte and Moffatt (2009) challenge our use of a random utility modelwhen studying individual choices in a fairness experiment. They proposean alternative approach, what we call the random behavioral model, andthey show that the choice of modeling strategy has profound implicationsfor our understanding of the observed behavior. In this note, we discusshow the two approaches differ, and we show that the random behavioralmodel of Conte and Moffatt (2009) fails to fit the data from our fairness experiment

Modeling Individual Choices in Experiments: Reply to Conte and Moffatt