Aggregating conclusive and inconclusive information: Data and a model based on the assessment of threat
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study examined the process of combining conclusive and inconclusive information using a Naval threat assessment simulation. On each of 36 trials, participants interrogated 10 pieces of information (e.g., speed, direction, bearing, etc.) about “targets” in a simulated radar space. The number of hostile, peaceful, and inconclusive cues was factorially varied across targets. Three models were developed to understand how inconclusive information is used in the judgment of threat. According to one model, inconclusive information is ignored and the judgment of threat is based only on the conclusive information. According to a second model, the amount of dominant conclusive information is normalized by all of the available information. Finally, according to a third model, inconclusive information is partitioned under the assumption that it equally represents both dominant and non‐dominant evidence. In Experiment 1, the data of novices (i.e., civilians) were best described by a model that assumes a partitioning of inconclusive evidence. This result was replicated in a second experiment involving variation of the global threat context. In a third experiment involving experts (i.e., Canadian Navy officers), the data of half of the participants were best described by the partitioning model and the data of the other half were best described by the normalizing model. In Experiments 1 and 2, the presence of inconclusive information produced a “dilution effect”, whereby hostile (peaceful) targets were judged as less hostile (peaceful) than the predictions of the Partitioning model. The dilution effect was not evident in the judgments of the Navy officers. Copyright © 2009 Crown in the right of Canada. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.038 | 0.280 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".