• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Risk analysis >The Aggregation of Expert Judgment: Do Good Things Come to Those Who Weight?
【24h】

The Aggregation of Expert Judgment: Do Good Things Come to Those Who Weight?

机译：专家判断的汇总：那些体重过重的人会得到好东西吗？

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Good policy making should be based on available scientific knowledge. Sometimes this knowledge is well established through research, but often scientists must simply express their judgment, and this is particularly so in risk scenarios that are characterized by high levels of uncertainty. Usually in such cases, the opinions of several experts will be sought in order to pool knowledge and reduce error, raising the question of whether individual expert judgments should be given different weights. We argue-against the commonly advocated "classical method"-that no significant benefits are likely to accrue from unequal weighting in mathematical aggregation. Our argument hinges on the difficulty of constructing reliable and valid measures of substantive expertise upon which to base weights. Practical problems associated with attempts to evaluate experts are also addressed. While our discussion focuses on one specific weighting scheme that is currently gaining in popularity for expert knowledge elicitation, our general thesis applies to externally imposed unequal weighting schemes more generally.
机译：良好的政策制定应基于现有的科学知识。有时，这些知识可以通过研究很好地建立起来，但是科学家通常必须简单地表达自己的判断，而在以高度不确定性为特征的风险情景中尤其如此。通常，在这种情况下，将征求几位专家的意见，以汇集知识并减少错误，从而提出了一个问题，即是否应赋予各个专家判断以不同的权重。与通常所倡导的“经典方法”相反，我们认为数学合计中的不平等权重不会带来任何明显的好处。我们的论点取决于难以建立可靠而有效的实质性专业知识衡量标准的依据。还讨论了与尝试评估专家相关的实际问题。虽然我们的讨论集中在一种特定的加权方案上，该方案目前在专家知识的启发中越来越流行，但我们的一般论文更普遍地适用于外部施加的不平等加权方案。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号