MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3092442805 · doi:10.1029/2020ef001526

Numerically Bounded Linguistic Probability Schemes Are Unlikely to Communicate Uncertainty Effectively

2020· article· en· W3092442805 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

VenueEarth s Future · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRisk Perception and Management
Canadian institutionsDefence Research and Development Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProbabilistic logicBounded functionInterpretation (philosophy)AttributionScheme (mathematics)Event (particle physics)Key (lock)Computer scienceLinguisticsEpistemologyMathematical economicsTheoretical computer sciencePsychologyMathematicsArtificial intelligenceSocial psychologyPhilosophyComputer securityPhysicsAstrophysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In a recent issue of Earth's Future (vol. 7, pp. 1020–1026), S. C. Lewis et al. (2019, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019EF001273 ) recommended a numerically bounded linguistic probability (NBLP) scheme for communicating probabilistic information in extreme event attribution studies. We provide a critique of NBLP schemes in general and of Lewis et al.'s in particular, noting two key points. First, evidence from voluminous behavioral science research on the interpretation of linguistic probabilities indicates that NBLP schemes are an ineffective means of communicating uncertainty to others. Second, where the motivation to implement such schemes nevertheless persists, the schemes should be developed through an evidence‐based approach that seeks to optimize interpretational agreement between the scheme and users.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.828
Threshold uncertainty score0.614

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.273 · 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