MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2220059168 · doi:10.5555/2772879.2773464

Voting with Social Influence: Using Arguments to Uncover Ground Truth

2015· article· en· W2220059168 on OpenAlexaff
Alan Tsang, John A. Doucette, Hadi Hosseini

Bibliographic record

VenueAdaptive Agents and Multi-Agents Systems · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicOpinion Dynamics and Social Influence
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGround truthVotingEstimatorComputer scienceSocial network (sociolinguistics)Class (philosophy)Social choice theoryArtificial intelligenceMathematical economicsMathematicsSocial mediaPolitical scienceStatisticsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In certain voting problems, a hidden ground truth is inferred by aggregating the opinions of an electorate. We propose a novel model of these underlying social interactions, and derive maximum likelihood estimators for the ground truth in these models, given the social network and votes. We also evaluate these new estimators, as well as existing ones, on a class of simulated social networks.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.158
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.093

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.158
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0060.013
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0050.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.086
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.244 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdaptive Agents and Multi-Agents SystemsSame topicOpinion Dynamics and Social InfluenceFrench-language works237,207