Nicolas Wüthrich
Biographic Data
| ID | 5996242 |
|---|---|
| NAME | Nicolas Wüthrich |
| GIVEN NAMES | Nicolas |
| FAMILY NAME | Wüthrich |
| SIGNATURE | WÜTHRICH N |
| AFFILIATIONS | London School of Economics and Political Science |
| ORCID | 0000-0003-4301-5619 |
| VERIFIED | Yes |
| TOTAL WORKS | 2 |
| TOTAL CITATIONS | 2 |
| WORKS AS AUTHOR | 2 |
| WORKS AS EDITOR | 0 |
| FIRST PUBLICATION YEAR | 2016 |
| LATEST PUBLICATION YEAR | 2019 |
| H-INDEX | 1 |
The problem of evaluating automated large-scale evidence aggregators
In the biomedical context, policy makers face a large amount of potentially discordant evidence from different sources. This prompts the question of how this evidence should be aggregated in the interests of best-informed policy recommendations. The starting point of our discussion is Hunter and Williams’ recent work on an automated aggregation method for medical evidence. Our negative claim is that it is far from clear what the relevant criteria…
Evaluating competing theories via a common language of qualitative verdicts
The problem of evaluating automated large-scale evidence aggregators
In the biomedical context, policy makers face a large amount of potentially discordant evidence from different sources. This prompts the question of how this evidence should be aggregated in the interests of best-informed policy recommendations. The starting point of our discussion is Hunter and Williams’ recent work on an automated aggregation method for medical evidence. Our negative claim is that it is far from clear what the relevant criteria…
Evaluating competing theories via a common language of qualitative verdicts
Evaluating competing theories via a common language of qualitative verdicts
The problem of evaluating automated large-scale evidence aggregators
In the biomedical context, policy makers face a large amount of potentially discordant evidence from different sources. This prompts the question of how this evidence should be aggregated in the interests of best-informed policy recommendations. The starting point of our discussion is Hunter and Williams’ recent work on an automated aggregation method for medical evidence. Our negative claim is that it is far from clear what the relevant criteria…
Artificial Intelligence (2 works) · Artificial Intelligence (2 works) · Bayesian Modeling and Causal Inference (2 works) · Computer Science (2 works) · Epistemology (2 works) · Mathematics (2 works) · Philosophy of science (2 works) · Arrow (1 work) · Arrow's impossibility theorem (1 work) · Automation (1 work)