The Expected Utility Model: Its Variants, Purposes, Evidence and Limitations
- Authors
- Paul J. H. Schoemaker
- Journal
- Journal of Economic Literature
In The Last Decade
doi.org/w4527762 →Countries where authors are citing The Expected Utility Model: Its Variants, Purposes, Evidence and Limitations
This map shows the geographic impact of The Expected Utility Model: Its Variants, Purposes, Evidence and Limitations. It shows the number of citations coming from papers published by authors working in each country. You can also color the map by specialization and compare the number of citations received by The Expected Utility Model: Its Variants, Purposes, Evidence and Limitations with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites The Expected Utility Model: Its Variants, Purposes, Evidence and Limitations more than expected).
Fields of papers citing The Expected Utility Model: Its Variants, Purposes, Evidence and Limitations
This network shows the impact of The Expected Utility Model: Its Variants, Purposes, Evidence and Limitations. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the The Expected Utility Model: Its Variants, Purposes, Evidence and Limitations.
About The Expected Utility Model: Its Variants, Purposes, Evidence and Limitations
This paper, published in 2007, received 428 indexed citations . Written by Paul J. H. Schoemaker covering the research area of General Economics, Econometrics and Finance, Finance and Economics and Econometrics. It is primarily cited by scholars working on Economics and Econometrics (151 citations), General Decision Sciences (124 citations) and Management Science and Operations Research (79 citations). Published in Journal of Economic Literature.
Rankless uses publication and citation data sourced from OpenAlex, an open and comprehensive bibliographic database. While OpenAlex provides broad and valuable coverage of the global research landscape, it—like all bibliographic datasets—has inherent limitations. These include incomplete records, variations in author disambiguation, differences in journal indexing, and delays in data updates. As a result, some metrics and network relationships displayed in Rankless may not fully capture the entirety of a scholar's output or impact.
This paper is also available at doi.org/w4527762.