Expert Elicitation of the Value per Statistical Life in an Air Pollution Context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The monetized value of avoided premature mortality typically dominates the calculated benefits of air pollution regulations; therefore, characterization of the uncertainty surrounding these estimates is key to good policymaking. Formal expert judgment elicitation methods are one means of characterizing this uncertainty. They have been applied to characterize uncertainty in the mortality concentration-response function, but have yet to be used to characterize uncertainty in the economic values placed on avoided mortality. We report the findings of a pilot expert judgment study for Health Canada designed to elicit quantitative probabilistic judgments of uncertainties in Value-per-Statistical-Life (VSL) estimates for use in an air pollution context. The two-stage elicitation addressed uncertainties in both a base case VSL for a reduction in mortality risk from traumatic accidents and in benefits transfer-related adjustments to the base case for an air quality application (e.g., adjustments for age, income, and health status). Results for each expert were integrated to develop example quantitative probabilistic uncertainty distributions for VSL that could be incorporated into air quality models.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".