Group judgement with ties. A position-based approach

A system for defining the positions taken by alternatives under preference orders proposed by Cook and Seiford is discussed. This makes it possible to apply some positional methods of group judgement to the case of ties in experts’ opinions, as well as in group judgements. Numerical examples are presented.tied alternatives in experts’ opinions, tied alternatives in group judgement, positional methods of making a group judgement

Kant on Perception, Experience and Judgements Thereof

It is commonly thought that the distinction between subjectively valid judgements of perception and objectively valid judgements of experience in the Prolegomena is not consistent with the account of judgement Kant offers in the B Deduction, according to which a judgement is ‘nothing other than the way to bring given cognitions to the objective unity of apperception’. Contrary to this view, I argue that the Prolegomena distinction maps closely onto that drawn between the mathematical and dynamical principles in the System of Principles: Kant’s account of the Prolegomena distinction strongly suggests that it is the Analogies of Experience that make it possible for judgements of perception to give rise to judgements of experience. This means that judgements of perception are objectively valid with regard to the quantity and quality of objects, and subjectively valid with regard to the relation they posit between objects. If that is the case, then the notion of a judgement of perception is consistent with the B Deduction account of judgement

Hand tremor and activity sensor

System detects hand tremor and activity and transmitting signals over distance of at least 3 meters to receiver system. Designed for use in studies of effect of fatigue on individual's judgement or reaction time, sensor is installed within mounting of finger-ring; no external wiring or power source is needed

Legal Judgement Prediction for UK Courts

Legal Judgement Prediction (LJP) is the task of automatically predicting the outcome of a court case given only the case document. During the last five years researchers have successfully attempted this task for the supreme courts of three jurisdictions: the European Union, France, and China. Motivation includes the many real world applications including: a prediction system that can be used at the judgement drafting stage, and the identification of the most important words and phrases within a judgement. The aim of our research was to build, for the first time, an LJP model for UK court cases. This required the creation of a labelled data set of UK court judgements and the subsequent application of machine learning models. We evaluated different feature representations and different algorithms. Our best performing model achieved: 69.05% accuracy and 69.02 F1 score. We demonstrate that LJP is a promising area of further research for UK courts by achieving high model performance and the ability to easily extract useful features

The Inherent Irrationality of Judgment Proofing

In recent articles in the Yale Law Journal and the Stanford Law Review, Professor Lynn M. LoPucki has sparked much academic discussion arguing that recent developments in corporate law have led to an erosion in the system of corporate liability, such that it might one day prove impotent. LoPucki has argued that transactions such as asset securitizations, sale-leasebacks, and corporate structures in which liabilities are placed in asset-poor subsidiaries are driving this change. One early critic to the LoPucki thesis, Professor James J. White, has argued that empirical data show no evidence of increasing use of judgement proofing techniques. In this Article, Professor Steven L. Schwarcz joins this debate, arguing that an economic analysis of these transactions suggests that widespread use of these judgement proofing techniques is unlikely. A key distinction in the analysis, Schwarcz argues, is between arm\u27s length and non-arm\u27s length transactions. Arm\u27s length transactions are unlikely to lead to judgement proofing because corporations will receive value--often cash-- for the assets they sell. It is only by paying out this value in dividends that a corporation begins to judgement-proof itself. The theoretical possibility to take value away from future involuntary creditors through such transactions will rarely be realized because of the costs--taxes, negative publicity, personal and criminal liability--of entering into such agreements. By contrast, in non-arm\u27s length transactions, corporate owners do have the incentive to create judgement-proof structures. However, these structures are not innovative, and they will continue to be well-regulated ex post by existing legal doctrines in bankruptcy, corporate law, tort law, and criminal law. Following this article are a response from Professor Lynn LoPucki, a comment by Professor Charles Mooney, and a breif rejoinder from Professor Schwarcz

Analysis of general aviation single-pilot IFR incident data obtained from the NASA aviation safety reporting system

Data obtained from the NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) data base were used to determine problems in general aviation single pilot IFR operations. The data examined consisted of incident reports involving flight safety in the National Aviation System. Only those incidents involving general aviation fixed wing aircraft flying under IFR in instrument meteorological conditions were analyzed. The data were cataloged into one of five major problem areas: (1) controller judgement and response problems; (2) pilot judgement and response problems; (3) air traffic control intrafacility and interfacility conflicts; (4) ATC and pilot communications problems; and (5) IFR-VFR conflicts. The significance of the related problems, and the various underlying elements associated with each are discussed. Previous ASRS reports covering several areas of analysis are reviewed

How Liable should an Exporter be? The Case of Trade in Hazardous Goods

This paper analyzes liability issues in the context of internationally traded goods like hazardous waste. If waste disposers of a small open economy are judgement-proof, then the extension of liability to waste exporters distorts the factor allocation and may reduce disposal care. Hence the optimal extension is partial at most. However, extending liability increases incentives of the waste importing country to hold domestic disposers liable. Interaction through the price system and through contracts that condition payments for disposal services on the occurrence of an accident yield identical outcomes if disposers are judgement-proof.extended liability, hazardous waste trade, externalities, moral hazard

The ecology of judgement:A model for understanding and improving social work judgements

Professional judgement is viewed as a crucial yet complex aspect of social work practice. Significant factors in judgement are understood to include individual psychological and emotional processes, interpersonal communication and the relationship between social work as a profession and society. Each contributory factor must be described and understood clearly in its own right and there is also a need to describe and understand the ways in which these different elements interact as parts of a complex system. We propose an ecological model of judgement that facilitates consideration of the complex non-linear interactions between multiple components forming a system or 'ecology' of judgement. Originating in the concepts of ecological rationality and systems thinking this paper proposes the ecology of judgement as a clear and logical model which practitioners and organisations can use to support and promote critical reflexive judgement in practice

Supporting Decision Makers with Knowledge Management Systems

This study compared the effectiveness of two knowledge management system designs in supporting individual decision makers in a predictive judgement task. The black-box versus white-box system design was varied to allow for automating versus informating support in cue weighting and combination stages of the judgement process. The main findings indicate that only the white-box system design was effective in improving decision makers’ performance through enhancing their knowledge and debiasing their judgement strategies. However, the study reveals room for further improvement and provides directions for future research

Why I am not a QBist

Quantum Bayesianism, or QBism, is a recent development of the epistemic view of quantum states, according to which the state vector represents knowledge about a quantum system, rather than the true state of the system. QBism explicitly adopts the subjective view of probability, wherein probability assignments express an agent's personal degrees of belief about an event. QBists claim that most if not all conceptual problems of quantum mechanics vanish if we simply take a proper epistemic and probabilistic perspective. Although this judgement is largely subjective and logically consistent, I explain why I do not share it.Comment: Added remarks and clarifications; forthcoming in Foundations of Physic