Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36852005›Full record

ArticleThe European physical journal. B2023

The coordination of collective and individual solutions in risk-resistant scenarios.

Jun Qian, Tongda Zhang, Xiao Sun, Yueting Chai

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The European physical journal. B, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Jun QianDepartment of Automation, Tsinghua University, 100084 Beijing, China.
Tongda ZhangDepartment of Mechanical and Energy Engineering, Southern University of Science and Technology, 518055 Shenzhen, China.
Xiao SunDepartment of Automation, Tsinghua University, 100084 Beijing, China.ORCID 0000-0001-7045-0187
Yueting ChaiDepartment of Automation, Tsinghua University, 100084 Beijing, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Abstract: Human societies are constantly coping with global risks. In the face of these risks, people typically have two options, that is, to respond together as a whole (collective solution) or to respond independently (individual solution). Based on these two solutions, individuals have a variety of behavioral strategies. On the other hand, various regulatory bodies supported by the population limit people's choices and punish individuals who do not contribute to collective solutions. So with different risks, how do the two solutions, the various individual strategies, and the constraints from regulators affect the group's response to risk? This paper proposes an extended public goods game model involving opportunists and the regulator to explore the effectiveness of collective and individual solutions against risks. The results show that requiring individuals to invest more in the collective solution reduces the group' s success in resisting risk. To improve the group's ability to resist risk, investment in individual solution should be at least no less than that in collective solution. The establishment fund and punishment intensity of the regulatory agency have no significant effect on the success of collective and individual solutions. This inspires us to contemplate the role and measures of various types of authorities in coping with global risks. Graphic Abstract:

Identifiers

PMID36852005
PMCPMC9947898

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.