MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3017877307 · doi:10.1016/s2468-2667(20)30096-7

Pitfalls of judgment during the COVID-19 pandemic

2020· review· en· W3017877307 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Donald A. Redelmeier, Eldar Shafir

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Public Health · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentreInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsIsolation (microbiology)Social distanceBlamePandemicNeglectCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)PsychologySocial isolationCoping (psychology)Mental healthPsychological resilienceSocial psychologyMedicineDiseasePsychiatryInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) crisis is a pandemic challenging human biology, the capacity of acute care hospitals, the financial resilience of economies, and the communication network for people. Strategies for reducing transmission have included repeated hand washing, physical distancing, and self-isolation. These preventive strategies are immediately available, highly affordable, and distinctly effective; however, a major challenge is the need to maintain adherence. The purpose of this Comment is to review eight behavioural pitfalls reported by psychological science, which are relevant to contexts that require judgment under uncertainty (table).

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)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.086
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.116

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.086
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.025
Scholarly communication0.0060.010
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0060.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.744
GPT teacher head0.558
Teacher spread0.186 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations37
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Lancet Public HealthSame topicDecision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsFrench-language works237,207