A Theory of Information Compression: When Judgments Are Costly
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A Theory of Information Compression: When Judgments Are Costly How useful to tourists are thousands of reviews of different five-star hotels in a city on a travel website when the mean rating is 4.5, and all the five-star hotels score around the mean? How insightful are reviews of physicians on a physician review website to potential patients when the ratings cluster tightly around an average for all physicians? Are there costs to the physicians, the patients, and to society as a whole? When all the students at a university score “A” grades on most courses, are there consequences for the university, the students, and potential employers? This paper calls the “clustering around a mean” phenomenon “information compression” and the systems in which it occurs (e.g., universities, students, employers) “judgment networks.” When there is extensive information compression in a system, measures such as ratings or grades have little value for decision makers. When all five-star hotels in a city score an average of 4.5 does it really matter which one a traveler chooses? The paper introduces a way of measuring information compression. It also suggests ways for organizations to overcome the negative consequences of information compression for themselves and their various stakeholders.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.027 | 0.209 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.028 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".