MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4288448951 · doi:10.29173/cgs66

The Gambler’s Fallacy

2022· article· en· W4288448951 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nahum Brown

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Gambling Studies · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical Economic and Legal Thought
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFallacyBattleEpistemologyPhilosophyPsychologyHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

I offer a conceptual study of Aristotle’s Sea Battle Paradox and propose that analysis of the paradox, as well as of its various solutions, can help to shed light on the psychology behind and the structure of the gambler’s fallacy. I compare Aristotle’s response to the paradox with Kierkegaard’s subsequent response in his chapter of Philosophical Fragments “Is the Past More Necessary than the Future?” I argue that proponents of each solution lead us to a different diagnosis of the gambler’s preoccupation with predetermination and future determination.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.957
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0070.001
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 head0.154
GPT teacher head0.448
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Gambling StudiesSame topicHistorical Economic and Legal ThoughtFrench-language works237,207