Objectifying the Subjective: Cognitive Biases in Topic Interpretations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Interpretation of topics is crucial for their downstream applications. State-of-the-art evaluation measures of topic quality such as coherence and word intrusion do not measure how much a topic facilitates the exploration of a corpus. To design evaluation measures grounded on a task, and a population of users, we do user studies to understand how users interpret topics. We propose constructs of topic quality and ask users to assess them in the context of a topic and provide rationale behind evaluations. We use reflexive thematic analysis to identify themes of topic interpretations from rationales. Users interpret topics based on availability and representativeness heuristics rather than probability. We propose a theory of topic interpretation based on the anchoring-and-adjustment heuristic: users anchor on salient words and make semantic adjustments to arrive at an interpretation. Topic interpretation can be viewed as making a judgment under uncertainty by an ecologically rational user, and hence cognitive biases aware user models and evaluation frameworks are needed.
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 | 0.084 | 0.330 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".