From jru-skills
Guides identification of risk/uncertainty parameters in JRU manuscripts, covering incentive-compatible elicitation and structural estimation.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/jru-skills:jru-identificationThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
- An experiment elicits a risk or ambiguity attitude but the mechanism may not be **incentive-compatible** (truthful revelation in doubt)
At JRU "identification" means the mapping from choices to the risk/uncertainty primitive must be explicit and defended — whether that primitive is elicited in the lab or estimated from the field. Because the journal spans theory, experiment, and empirics, identification splits by branch. The unifying demand: the procedure must reveal the intended parameter and not confound it with utility curvature, beliefs, or constraints.
Three confounds recur across both branches; name how the design defeats each:
A clean identification section states, for each of these, whether the design breaks the confound or leaves it open — and the honest "leaves it open" entries belong in the limitations, not hidden.
A field study infers high risk aversion from low flood-insurance takeup. A referee notes this confounds preferences with beliefs (households may think the risk is near zero) and with constraints (premiums vs. liquidity). The JRU fix elicits subjective loss probabilities separately, then uses exogenous premium variation (say a subsidy lottery) to move price holding beliefs fixed — so the demand elasticity identifies a preference, not a misperception. The reported elasticity (illustrative −0.3) now means what the paper claims it means.
A lab paper reports a single "risk aversion" coefficient from a Holt–Laury price list. A referee points out the coefficient bundles utility curvature with probability weighting, so it cannot speak to whether the behavior is EU or CPT. The JRU revision adds a menu block that holds outcomes fixed while sweeping probabilities; the resulting certainty equivalents trace an inverse-S w(p) that pins weighting independently of u — turning one confounded number into two interpretable primitives.
Every honest identification section closes a door it leaves open. Name explicitly what the design cannot recover — a population parameter beyond the experimental sample, a belief you could not elicit, a margin you could not exogenously vary. JRU referees treat a candid "we identify the preference but not the belief" far more kindly than an overclaim that the data cannot support, and it pre-empts the most damaging review verdict: that the headline number means something other than what the paper says.
【Journal】Journal of Risk and Uncertainty
【Skill】jru-identification
【Verdict】identified / patch design / re-estimate
【Branch】experimental elicitation / structural-empirical
【Choices-to-primitive mapping】one sentence
【Identification evidence】mechanism+IC / identifying variation + belief separation
【What it does NOT identify】<confounds left open>
【Source status】verified / 待核实 / not asserted
【Next skill】jru-robustness
npx claudepluginhub brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills --plugin jru-skillsChecks robustness of risk/uncertainty parameters from Journal of Risk and Uncertainty results, organizing sensitivity analysis by threat type (functional form, elicitation device, stakes, multiple comparisons, etc.).
Stress-tests experimental and observational identification designs for JEBO manuscripts, covering lab and field experiments, causal inference, and behavioral mechanisms.
Helps refine identification arguments for IER manuscripts: structural parameter ID, causal design, or theory tightness. Does not run estimation.