Attribution Errors by People and Intelligent Machines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore the ramifications of attribution errors (AEs), initially in the context of vehicle collisions and then to extend this understanding into the broader and diverse realms of all forms of human-machine interaction. BACKGROUND: This work focuses upon a particular topic that John Senders was examining at the time of his death. He was using the lens of attribution, and its associated errors, to seek to further understand and explore dyadic forms of driver collision. METHOD: We evaluated the utility of the set of Senders' final observations on conjoint AE in two-vehicle collisions. We extended this evaluation to errors of attribution generally, as applicable to all human-human, human-technology, and prospectively technology-technology interactions. RESULTS: As with Senders and his many other contributions, we find evident value in this perspective on how humans react to each other and how they react to emerging forms of technology, such as autonomous systems. We illustrate this value through contemporary examples and prospective analyses. APPLICATIONS: The comprehension and mitigation of AEs can help improve all interactions between people, between intelligent machines and between humans and the machines they work with.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".