MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401176186 · doi:10.1080/1047840x.2024.2366813

Kahneman in Quotes and Reflections

2024· article· en· W4401176186 on OpenAlexaff
Brett Buttliere, Alexiοs Arvanitis, Michał Białek, Shoham Choshen‐Hillel, Shai Davidai, Thomas Gilovich, Uriel Haran, Ángela Jiang-Wang, Qiao Kang Teo, Vojtěch Kotrba, Chengwei Liu, David R. Mandel, Gordon Pennycook, Tobias R. Rebholz, Michael Schulte‐Mecklenbeck, Norbert Schwarz, Ze’ev Shtudiner, Steven A. Sloman, Joakim Sundh, Cass R. Sunstein, Daniel Västfjäll, Mario Weick

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychological Inquiry · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyCognitive psychologyPsychoanalysisEpistemologySocial psychologyCognitive sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this retrospective honoring the exemplary psychologist Daniel Kahneman (1934–2024), the authors present a curated selection of quotes from the academic community reflecting on his ideas. These submissions, gathered from a wide range of scholars, highlight Kahneman’s contributions to fields spanning attention, judgment, decision-making, and well-being. From his exploration of cognitive biases to his groundbreaking work on prospect theory, Kahneman’s research revolutionized researchers’ understanding of human behavior and decision-making. Beyond his research, many quotes also emphasize Kahneman’s thoughts on what it means to be a behavioral scientist—focusing on a commitment to criticism, transparency, and adversarial collaboration; showcasing the dynamic nature of scientific inquiry across disciplinary divides; and highlighting his dedication to advancing the greater good. Together, these reflections paint a portrait of a visionary thinker whose theoretical and meta-scientific contributions have left an indelible mark on psychology and other social sciences.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0100.008
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0040.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.603
GPT teacher head0.610
Teacher spread0.008 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychological InquirySame topicDecision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsFrench-language works237,207