Pre-decisional information search adaptively reduces three types of uncertainty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
How do people search for information when they are given the opportunity to freely explore their options? Previous research has suggested that people focus on reducing uncertainty before making a decision, but it remains unclear how exactly they do so and whether they do so consistently. We present an analysis of over 1,000,000 information-search decisions made by over 2,500 individuals in a decisions-from-experience setting that cleanly separates information search from choice. Using a data-driven approach supported by a formal measurement framework, we examine how people allocate samples to options and how they decide to terminate search. Three major insights emerge. First, pre-decisional information search has at least three drivers that can be interpreted as reducing three types of uncertainty: structural, estimation, and computational. Second, the selection of these drivers of information search is adaptive, sequential, and guided by environmental knowledge that integrates prior expectations, task instructions, and personal experiences. Third, pre-decisional information search exhibits substantial inter-individual heterogeneity, with individuals recruiting different drivers of information search. Together, these insights suggest that human information search is complex in ways that cannot be fully explained by monolithic accounts of information search, including proposals focused on estimation uncertainty or cost–benefit analysis. We conclude that broader theories of human information-search behavior are necessary.
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 | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".