MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2586072088

Strategies, Heuristics and Biases in Complex Problem Solving

2007· article· en· W2586072088 on OpenAlexafffund
Frédéric Dandurand, Thomas R. Shultz, Kristine H. Onishi

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship (California Digital Library) · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCognitive Science and Mapping
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMcGill University
KeywordsHeuristicsPsychologySet (abstract data type)Computer scienceArtificial intelligence
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

How do instructions help people solving complex puzzles?We studied a problem solving task (Which of the 12 balls is heavier or lighter than the rest?) using detailed analyses of problem solving steps to assess what cognitive biases, heuristics and strategies were used.First, we found that all participants effectively used means-ends analysis.Second, in the absence of instructions or observation of successful solutions, participants preferred symmetrical and overly simple solution steps.Instructions and imitation effectively reduced these biases, which was important for correct solutions.Finally, instructions and imitation helped participants attend to less salient aspects of the task.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.392
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.008
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations3
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship (California Digital Library)Same topicCognitive Science and MappingFrench-language works237,207