MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4288052863 · doi:10.47820/recima21.v3i7.1744

VIÉS DE CONFIRMAÇÃO NA TOMADA DE DECISÕES DE INOVAÇÃO

2022· article· en· W4288052863 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

VenueRECIMA21 - Revista Científica Multidisciplinar - ISSN 2675-6218 · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCompetitive and Knowledge Intelligence
Canadian institutionsOntario College of Art and Design
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitive biasConfirmation biasProduct (mathematics)Face (sociological concept)CognitionPsychologyBusinessSocial psychologySociologySocial scienceNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Potential innovators need to overcome many challenges. One such challenge is confirmation bias in decision-making. Human evolution has programmed the brain to act quickly in the face of a threat in the environment. In this way, thinking and (instantaneously) acting rationally is almost impossible for most people. This causes several negative effects on decision-making, notably cognitive biases. For example, an entrepreneur who wants to launch a new product on the market tends to convince herself/himself that her/his product is innovative, ignoring evidence to the contrary, this being a confirmation bias. An innovative analysis of the causes and consequences of the confirmation bias in innovation decision-making is the main goal of this article.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.821
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.252 · 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