MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2485516821 · doi:10.1057/palcomms.2016.50

Independence of events, and errors in understanding it

2016· article· en· W2485516821 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePalgrave Communications · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicSports Analytics and Performance
Canadian institutionsThe King's UniversityWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGestalt psychologyIndependence (probability theory)FallacyFocus (optics)PsychologyEvent (particle physics)Cognitive psychologyEpistemologySocial psychologyOutcome (game theory)Positive economicsPhilosophyEconomicsMathematicsMathematical economics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This article outlines errors that may occur when people predict event outcomes. The focus is on how our tendency to perceive independent events as connected, consistent with tenets of Gestalt Psychology, biases our expectations. Two well-documented phenomena that occur when people make predictions after a run of a particular outcome—the “gambler’s fallacy” and the “hot hand”—are used to illustrate the issue, and research is presented that highlights the importance of misperceptions of independence. Novel implications and hypotheses are presented that are generated from use of this gestalt approach.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.263
Threshold uncertainty score0.189

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 head0.137
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.146 · 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