A Novel Decision Support Framework for Computing Expected Utilities from Linguistic Evaluations
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
The increase in the amount and variety of evaluations provided by the users of different websites regarding the products displayed is becoming an increasingly familiar scenario. That is, decision makers (DMs) constantly receive linguistic evaluations (LEs) from unknown evaluators when considering different choice alternatives. The imprecision of the LEs and the fact that the evaluators may have biased interests when describing a product must be considered by the DMs when computing their expected utilities. We define a Bayesian-updated probability (BUP) function that accounts for the fuzziness inherent in the LEs and the reputation of the evaluator to represent the beliefs of DMs. The proposed BUP process allows the DMs to subjectively adjust the probability mass that is shifted across evaluation intervals when updating their beliefs and computing their corresponding expected utilities. We illustrate the behavior of the BUP function numerically and describe potential decision support applications.
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 | 0.006 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 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