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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.363
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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