Integrating Street Vendors in City Planning: The Case of Vadodara
Clicks: 47
ID: 311708
2012
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
0.0
/100
47 views
0 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Ranked #1 of 3 articles by views in Street Vendors in the Global Urban Economy
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
R Soc Open Sci. 2025 May 21;12(5):250290. doi: 10.1098/rsos.250290. eCollection 2025 May. Factors impacting effective altruism: revisiting heuristics and biases in charity in a replication and extension registered report of Baron and Szymanska (2011). Chan M, Feldman G(1).Individuals who donate to charity may be affected by various biases and donate inefficiently. In a replication and extension registered report with a US Amazon Mechanical Turk sample using CloudResearch (N = 1403), we replicated studies 1 to 4 in Baron & Szymanska (Baron & Szymanska 2011 In The science of giving: experimental approaches to the study of charity (eds DM Oppenheimer, CY Olivola), pp. 215-235 (doi:10.4324/9780203865972-24)) with extensions on reputation and overhead funding. We found support for the effects of a preference for lower perceived waste (d = 0.70, 95% CI [0.41, 0.99]), lower past costs (d = 0.59, 95% CI [0.16, 1.02]), for the ingroup (d = 0.52, 95% CI [0.47, 0.58]), for having some diversification between charities (d = 0.63, 95% CI [0.47, 0.78] for single projects; d = 1.18, 95% CI [1.00, 1.36] for several projects versus one) and against forced charity (d = 0.29, 95% CI [0.21, 0.37]; nominally replicated, but has caveats regarding validity); as at least four of our five hypotheses were found to replicate, we conclude this as being a successful replication. Extending the replication, we found support for an unexpected preference for anonymity on donation allocation (opposite to our predictions; d = 0.54, 95% CI [0.46, 0.61]), and support for a preference towards paid-for overhead costs on donation allocation (d = 0.60, 95% CI [0.52, 0.68]). We discuss the implications and validity of these findings. All materials, data and code were made available on: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/BEP78. This registered report has been officially endorsed by Peer Community in Registered Reports: https://doi.org/10.24072/pci.rr.100775. © 2025 The Authors. DOI: 10.1098/rsos.250290 PMCID: PMC12092110 PMID: 40400516 Conflict of interest statement: We declare we have no competing interests.
| Reference Key |
unknown2012integratingstreetven
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | |
| Journal | Street Vendors in the Global Urban Economy |
| Year | 2012 |
| DOI |
10.4324/9780203150542-12
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.