The Use of Explanations in Knowledge-Based Systems: Cognitive Perspectives and a Process-Tracing Analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This exploratory research investigates the nature of explanation use and factors that influence it during users' interaction with a knowledge-based system (KBS) for decision-making. It draws upon several cognitive perspectives to help understand when, why, and how explanations are used. A verbal protocol analysis was conducted based on a laboratory experiment involving a KBS for financial analysis. Major categories of explanation use were identified, and accounted for with relevant cognitive perspectives. Results show that explanations were requested to deal with comprehension difficulties caused by various types of perceived anomalies in KBS output. There were qualitative and quantitative differences in the nature and extent of explanation use between novices and experienced professionals. These results offer new insights to why explanations are useful and important, what factors influence explanation use, and what information should be included in explanations.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it