標(biāo)題: Titlebook: Experts and Consensus in Social Science; Carlo Martini,Marcel Boumans Book 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014 Applyin [打印本頁] 作者: Impacted 時間: 2025-3-21 19:11
書目名稱Experts and Consensus in Social Science影響因子(影響力)
書目名稱Experts and Consensus in Social Science影響因子(影響力)學(xué)科排名
書目名稱Experts and Consensus in Social Science網(wǎng)絡(luò)公開度
書目名稱Experts and Consensus in Social Science網(wǎng)絡(luò)公開度學(xué)科排名
書目名稱Experts and Consensus in Social Science被引頻次
書目名稱Experts and Consensus in Social Science被引頻次學(xué)科排名
書目名稱Experts and Consensus in Social Science年度引用
書目名稱Experts and Consensus in Social Science年度引用學(xué)科排名
書目名稱Experts and Consensus in Social Science讀者反饋
書目名稱Experts and Consensus in Social Science讀者反饋學(xué)科排名
作者: glisten 時間: 2025-3-21 22:20 作者: defuse 時間: 2025-3-22 03:26
Model-Based Consensusexpert on the basis of his or her knowledge and ability to judge relevant uncertainties. The measurement of the performance of the experts is based on the expert’s assessment of “seed variables”. These performances are used to determine the weights of the expert’s judgments in the aggregation of the作者: 車床 時間: 2025-3-22 06:28 作者: Spangle 時間: 2025-3-22 11:21 作者: Clumsy 時間: 2025-3-22 14:26 作者: Clumsy 時間: 2025-3-22 19:14
The Expert Economist in Times of Uncertaintycent important contributions. The article identifies the main conceptual dilemma associated with the social scientific study of experts, stemming from the emphasis in either the objective or the relational dimension of the phenomenon of expertise. In this article the attributional or relational aspe作者: 輕觸 時間: 2025-3-23 00:24
Validating Expert Judgment with the Classical Modelince publication of the TU Delft expert judgment database in 2008, various authors have attempted to use this data base for cross validation, splitting the seed variables into training sets and test sets. These attempts are reviewed. Many pitfalls and biases in cross validation efforts are identifie作者: 惹人反感 時間: 2025-3-23 01:25
The Truth About Accuracythe term, evaluative judgments about them. We look at operational accuracy as a desirable and evaluable quality of the outcomes and explore how the concepts of accuracy and precision, on the basis of insights borrowed from pragmatics and measurement theory, can be seen to do useful work in epistemol作者: 反饋 時間: 2025-3-23 06:10
Expert Advisers: Why Economic Forecasters Can Be Useful Even When They Are Wrongent reached by those who have studied a topic in great detail. On the other hand, does the very same specialization that confers expert status also mean that the group is unable to consider all alternatives equally? In other words, do the shared analytic models and other practices that expert groups作者: 巧辦法 時間: 2025-3-23 10:52 作者: Agronomy 時間: 2025-3-23 15:16
Private Epistemic Virtue, Public Vices: Moral Responsibility in the Policy Sciencescter of scientific communities can be evaluated morally and be found wanting in terms of moral responsibility. Even an epistemically successful scientific community can be morally responsible for consequences that were unforeseen by it and its members and that follow from policy advice given by its 作者: Encumber 時間: 2025-3-23 21:22 作者: 擋泥板 時間: 2025-3-24 00:46
Amber Esping,Jonathan A. Plucker the study of the expert status and its role in policy-making processes. The claim is sustained by reviewing some well-known theses in ideational and related approaches in Comparative Political Economy.作者: 去掉 時間: 2025-3-24 05:47 作者: 微不足道 時間: 2025-3-24 08:36 作者: 我悲傷 時間: 2025-3-24 11:22
Book 2014ance on the subjective judgment of experts and practitioners is the main source of useful knowledge to address and possibly, bring solutions to social problems. A common phenomenon in applications of science is that objective evidence does not point to a single answer or solution, to a problem. Reli作者: 玩忽職守 時間: 2025-3-24 16:30 作者: 背景 時間: 2025-3-24 22:00 作者: Trigger-Point 時間: 2025-3-25 00:03
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-3238-9d and explained. A proposal for performing cross validation, based largely on the work of Eggstaff et al. (Reliab Eng Syst Saf 121:72–82, 2014) is formulated and illustrated with data from recent expert judgment studies.作者: Ancillary 時間: 2025-3-25 03:57
Struggling Over the Soul of Economics: Objectivity Versus Expertiseo (or, more precisely, ought to do following the traditional ideal). It is quite obvious, however, that making expert judgments more prominent alone won’t suffice. The right kind of expert judgment is needed. The chapter will therefore end with some thoughts about what a better economic expertise might look like.作者: 預(yù)防注射 時間: 2025-3-25 08:41
Validating Expert Judgment with the Classical Modeld and explained. A proposal for performing cross validation, based largely on the work of Eggstaff et al. (Reliab Eng Syst Saf 121:72–82, 2014) is formulated and illustrated with data from recent expert judgment studies.作者: Suggestions 時間: 2025-3-25 15:03
Introduction: Experts and Consensus in Social Science,ensus formation? And, is there a normative aspect to the formation of scientific and policy making consensus? The contributions of this book focus on experts: those institutional figures that act as a liaison between science and policy makers, politicians, governments, and other public domains.作者: 輪流 時間: 2025-3-25 17:18
The Institutional Economics of Stakeholder Consultation; How Experts Can Contribute to Reduce the Cofrom the Netherlands, provide guidelines for the effective institutional setup of such “matching zones”. Specifically, the design of a “matching zone” should try to adhere to the following principles: . there should be a common interest and ample incentives for reaching an agreement; . there should 作者: Obituary 時間: 2025-3-25 20:11
Explicating Ways of Consensus-Making in Science and Society: Distinguishing the Academic, the Interfpportunity (Solomon M, The social epistemology of NIH consensus conferences. In: Kincaid H, McKitrick J (ed) Establishing medical reality: methodological and metaphysical issues in philosophy of medicine. Springer, Dordrecht, 2007). Paying attention to the dynamics surrounding consensus, moreover, a作者: Invertebrate 時間: 2025-3-26 03:58
Judgments About the Relevance of Evidence in the Context of Peer Disagreements and Practical Rationapproached in the recent literature. I believe that there is a difference between addressing the disagreement problem hypothetically, or in theory, as an abstraction of ., and regarding this same problem when it is considered from a . point of view, in consideration of features that characterize . ca作者: 剝皮 時間: 2025-3-26 08:04 作者: Outspoken 時間: 2025-3-26 08:49 作者: 演講 時間: 2025-3-26 16:21
The Role of Experts in the Condominium Model as Republican (Re-) Solution of Social, Economic, and Pexperts. However, problems arise when one takes into account the variety of expert types, and especially the fact that not all of them fulfill the impartiality condition. This may pose some challenges to the condominium model. In this chapter I present and address those challenges.作者: headlong 時間: 2025-3-26 18:58 作者: GLOOM 時間: 2025-3-26 23:43 作者: AROMA 時間: 2025-3-27 01:53 作者: 過剩 時間: 2025-3-27 06:39 作者: Incisor 時間: 2025-3-27 13:26
James A. Lennox,Graham M. Turnerfrom the Netherlands, provide guidelines for the effective institutional setup of such “matching zones”. Specifically, the design of a “matching zone” should try to adhere to the following principles: . there should be a common interest and ample incentives for reaching an agreement; . there should 作者: –scent 時間: 2025-3-27 16:17
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10939-8pportunity (Solomon M, The social epistemology of NIH consensus conferences. In: Kincaid H, McKitrick J (ed) Establishing medical reality: methodological and metaphysical issues in philosophy of medicine. Springer, Dordrecht, 2007). Paying attention to the dynamics surrounding consensus, moreover, a作者: Deceit 時間: 2025-3-27 17:57 作者: 打谷工具 時間: 2025-3-27 23:26 作者: CODA 時間: 2025-3-28 05:47 作者: affect 時間: 2025-3-28 09:33
Handbook of International Insuranceexperts. However, problems arise when one takes into account the variety of expert types, and especially the fact that not all of them fulfill the impartiality condition. This may pose some challenges to the condominium model. In this chapter I present and address those challenges.作者: Toxoid-Vaccines 時間: 2025-3-28 11:51
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10687-8 evaluation. We argue that these omissions in Douglas’s theory leave it with no adequate response to TEDI Syndrome. Moreover, we deny that science ought to be characterized by unanimity of belief among its competent practitioners, this leads easily to the vices of close-mindedness and expert-overcon作者: Visual-Field 時間: 2025-3-28 15:45 作者: Addictive 時間: 2025-3-28 22:14
978-3-319-34319-8Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014作者: Insulin 時間: 2025-3-29 01:10
Experts and Consensus in Social Science978-3-319-08551-7Series ISSN 2211-2707 Series E-ISSN 2211-2723 作者: 描述 時間: 2025-3-29 04:29 作者: 南極 時間: 2025-3-29 11:02 作者: CYN 時間: 2025-3-29 12:36
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08551-7Applying the Neyman-Rubin Model; Attributing Expertise in Uncertain Times; Consensus and Its Critics; C作者: VOC 時間: 2025-3-29 17:59
Handbook of Inpatient Cardiologyt of individual scientists with their own personal backgrounds and experiences, and there is no unique methodology to de-personalize and objectify knowledge. Social scientists, in particular, use a variety of tools for their investigations: They gather evidence from different sources, under differen作者: Pamphlet 時間: 2025-3-29 20:25
James A. Lennox,Graham M. Turnerfor the consultation of, and for the discussion between these stakeholders is needed in order to avoid high implementation costs. Following the theory of new institutional economics these implementation costs can be seen as transaction costs. This is especially relevant in Government-to-Business (G2作者: 敬禮 時間: 2025-3-30 02:56 作者: 到婚嫁年齡 時間: 2025-3-30 05:23
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10939-8 of consensus-making in science and society and examining the impact hereof on their field of intersection, i.e. consensus conferences (in particular those organized by the National Institute of Health). We draw a distinction between, what we call, academic and interface consensus, to capture the wi作者: 蹣跚 時間: 2025-3-30 09:45
Diane L. Swanson Ph.D.,Marc Orlitzky Ph.D. you discover that you are disagreeing with a peer – a colleague, fellow expert, or simply someone that you have reason to believe is just as competent as you are on the matter at hand. The topic of disagreement and more specifically the problem of how to respond to disagreement, is relevant in many
