Facilitating sender-receiver agreement in communicated probabilities: Is it best to use words, numbers or both?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Organizations tasked with communicating expert judgments couched in uncertainty often use numerically bounded linguistic probability schemes to standardize the meaning of verbal probabilities. An experiment ( N = 1,202) was conducted to ascertain whether agreement with such a scheme was better when probabilities were presented verbally, numerically or in a combined “verbal + numeric” format. Across three agreement measures, the numeric and combined formats outperformed the verbal format and also yielded better discrimination between low and high probabilities and were less susceptible to the fifty-fifty blip phenomenon. The combined format did not confer any advantage over the purely numeric format. The findings indicate that numerically bounded linguistic probability schemes are an ineffective means of communicating information about probabilities to others and they call into question recommendations for use of the combined format for delivering such schemes.
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 | 0.041 | 0.252 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".