Track Records
A Cautionary Tale
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 8396643 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Alice C W Huang (0000-0002-1719-1945, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2023 |
| Publication date | 2023-11-06 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0007-0882 • E-ISSN: 1464-3537 |
| Publisher | University of Chicago Press (PUBLISHER • US) |
| DOI | 10.1086/728459 |
| OpenAlex | W4388407629 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 2 |
| References cited | 17 |
In the literature on expert trust, it is often assumed that track records are the gold standard for evaluating expertise, and the difficulty of expert identification arises from either the lack of access to track records, or the inability to assess them. I show, using a computational model, that even in an idealized environment where agents have a God’s eye view on track records, they may fail to identify experts. Under plausible conditions, selecting testimony based on track records ends up reducing overall accuracy, and preventing the community from identifying the real experts
Download · Epistemology · Library science · Philosophy of science · World Wide Web · Computer Science · Data Visualization and Analytics · Opinion Dynamics and Social Influence · Philosophy · Topic Modeling
Keeping One's Distance
Truth and Conformity on Networks
A New Status Index Derived from Sociometric Analysis
Prediction with expert advice applied to the problem of prediction with expert advice
Cognitive islands and runaway echo chambers
The Communication Structure of Epistemic Communities
Experts
Discovering Quantum Causal Models
The relation between perception and behavior, or how to win a game of Trivial Pursuit
Power and Centrality
| Unique citing works | 2 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 2 |
| Citation span | 2025 - 2026 (2) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 2 |