In search of good probability assessors: an experimental comparison of elicitation rules for confidence judgments
From MaRDI portal
(Redirected from Publication:266507)
Recommendations
Cites work
- scientific article; zbMATH DE number 3612275 (Why is no real title available?)
- scientific article; zbMATH DE number 3288322 (Why is no real title available?)
- A Mechanism for Eliciting Probabilities
- A truth serum for non-Bayesians: correcting proper scoring rules for risk attitudes
- Alternative Approaches to the Theory of Choice in Risk-Taking Situations
- An Experimental Study of Belief Learning Using Elicited Beliefs
- Betting on own knowledge: Experimental test of overconfidence
- Choice-Based Elicitation and Decomposition of Decision Weights for Gains and Losses Under Uncertainty
- Comonotonic proper scoring rules to measure ambiguity and subjective beliefs
- Judgemental Overconfidence, Self-Monitoring, and Trading Performance in an Experimental Financial Market
- Strictly Proper Scoring Rules, Prediction, and Estimation
- The binarized scoring rule
Cited in
(9)- Signaling probabilities in ambiguity: who reacts to vague news?
- Confidence biases and learning among intuitive Bayesians
- Betting on own knowledge: Experimental test of overconfidence
- Belief formation in a signaling game without common prior: an experiment
- Belief elicitation in experiments: Is there a hedging problem?
- An experimental comparison of induced and elicited beliefs
- Bribing the Self
- Optimal group decision: a matter of confidence calibration
- The uniqueness of local proper scoring rules: the logarithmic family
This page was built for publication: In search of good probability assessors: an experimental comparison of elicitation rules for confidence judgments
Report a bug (only for logged in users!)Click here to report a bug for this page (MaRDI item Q266507)