MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7148205077

The big bad bias book. A field guide to over 200 cognitive biases that shape how we think, decide, and behave

2025· book· en· W7148205077 on OpenAlexaff
Ganna Pogrebna, Karen Renaud

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Portal (Queen's University Belfast) · 2025
Typebook
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicPsychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsField (mathematics)Cognitive biasCognitionPerceptionMeasure (data warehouse)Motivated reasoning
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Big Bad Bias Book: A Field Guide to Over 200 Cognitive Biases That Shape How We Think, Decide, and Behave provides a comprehensive reference guide to cognitive biases and their role in human judgement, behaviour and decision-making. Designed for students, educators, professionals and general readers, the book catalogues more than 200 biases through concise definitions, historical and conceptual origins, research summaries, case studies and visual explanations. Its field-guide structure allows readers to examine individual biases while also recognising broader patterns in perception, memory, reasoning, social influence, risk assessment and choice. By combining psychological theory with examples from business, education, media, leadership, history and everyday life, the book translates behavioural science into an accessible format for teaching, training and independent study. The volume contributes to public and applied understanding of cognitive bias by presenting complex ideas in a structured, illustrated and practically oriented form, supporting the development of critical thinking, self-reflection and more informed decision-making.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.217

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0650.050

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 head0.133
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.203 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Portal (Queen's University Belfast)→Same topicPsychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment→French-language works237,207→