Quand des mécanismes génératifs et préventifs rencontrent des informations compatibles et incompatibles dans le raisonnement causal probabiliste.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several recent models of probabilistic causal reasoning in adults propose the existence of multiple interactions between ascending and descending factors. The aim of the present study is to evaluate the potential interactions between knowledge about generative and preventive mechanisms, the delta p of the data, and the relative importance given to the type of data provided. Two experiments involving 54 participants each are conducted, in which participants are invited to quantify the nature of a potential link (causal or associative) between adding a chemical substance to the asphalt of the roads and the formation of a slippery road in the winter, after being given information suggestive of (1) a generative mechanism, (2) a preventive mechanism, or (3) nothing special. Results show an influence of the suggested mechanisms on the reading of data that were provided, especially those with a delta p that is compatible with the a priori mechanism. These results are interpreted and discussed in line with the importance of considering multiple factors in probabilistic causal reasoning. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.016 | 0.130 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".