Does a rider’s nationality or start order affect their dressage score? How do humans allocate visual focus to assess movement and assign scores? In this episode, Dr. Inga Wolframm is joined by Dr. Peter Reuter to discuss recent research efforts to better understand different sources of bias in judged sports and how expert evaluators form visual search patterns to arrive at their assessments.
LINK
What causes firms to behave the way they do when they face different investment opportunities? We argue that both people and processes are behind the decision-making of project implementation. Member and professional CEOs of cooperatives differ regarding their managerial vision towards upstream and downstream projects. Cooperatives with member CEOs are upstream focused and it is reflected by the cascading effect of negative vision bias towards downstream projects. When downstream activities become more important, cooperatives need to replace the member CEOs with professional CEOs. However, a cooperative with a professional CEO may still be in a disadvantageous position if the member-dominated Board of Directors' negative bias towards downstream projects is too strong, which may result in an investor owned firm being the efficient governance structure.
Reporting of research findings is often selective. This threatens the validity of the published body of knowledge if the decision to report depends on the nature of the results. The evidence derived from studies on causes and mechanisms underlying selective reporting may help to avoid or reduce reporting bias. Such research should be guided by a theoretical framework of possible causal pathways that lead to reporting bias. We build upon a classification of determinants of selective reporting that we recently developed in a systematic review of the topic. The resulting theoretical framework features four clusters of causes. There are two clusters of necessary causes: (A) motivations (e.g. a preference for particular findings) and (B) means (e.g. a flexible study design). These two combined represent a sufficient cause for reporting bias to occur. The framework also features two clusters of component causes: (C) conflicts and balancing of interests referring to the individual or the team, and (D) pressures from science and society. The component causes may modify the effect of the necessary causes or may lead to reporting bias mediated through the necessary causes. Our theoretical framework is meant to inspire further research and to create awareness among researchers and end-users of research about reporting bias and its causes.
![Causes of reporting bias: a theoretical framework [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]](https://publinova-harvester-content-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/thumbnails/files/previews/pdf/20240419021423483168.68f_a863_4e94_84cd_cf2a63540cea_18310_jenny_van_der_stee-thumbnail-400x300.png)
Artificiële Intelligentie (AI) speelt een steeds belangrijkere rol in mediaorganisaties bij de automatische creatie, personalisatie, distributie en archivering van mediacontent. Dit gaat gepaard met vragen en bezorgdheid in de maatschappij en de mediasector zelf over verantwoord gebruik van AI. Zo zijn er zorgen over discriminatie van bepaalde groepen door bias in algoritmes, over toenemende polarisatie door de verspreiding van radicale content en desinformatie door algoritmes en over schending van privacy bij een niet transparante omgang met data. Veel mediaorganisaties worstelen met de vraag hoe ze verantwoord met AI-toepassingen om moeten gaan. Mediaorganisaties geven aan dat bestaande ethische instrumenten voor verantwoorde AI, zoals de EU “Ethics Guidelines for trustworthy AI” (European Commission, 2019) en de “AI Impact Assessment” (ECP, 2018) onvoldoende houvast bieden voor het ontwerp en de inzet van verantwoorde AI, omdat deze instrumenten niet specifiek zijn toegespitst op het mediadomein. Hierdoor worden deze ethische instrumenten nog nauwelijks toegepast in de mediasector, terwijl mediaorganisaties aangeven dat daar wel behoefte aan is. Het doel van dit project is om mediaorganisaties te ondersteunen en begeleiden bij het inbedden van verantwoorde AI in hun organisaties en bij het ontwerpen, ontwikkelen en inzetten van verantwoorde AI-toepassingen, door domeinspecifieke ethische instrumenten te ontwikkelen. Dit gebeurt aan de hand van drie praktijkcasussen die zijn aangedragen door mediaorganisaties: pluriforme aanbevelingssystemen, inclusieve spraakherkenningssystemen voor de Nederlandse taal en collaboratieve productie-ondersteuningssystemen. De ontwikkeling van de ethische instrumenten wordt uitgevoerd met een Research-through-Design aanpak met meerdere iteraties van informatie verzamelen, analyseren prototypen en testen. De beoogde resultaten van dit praktijkgerichte onderzoek zijn: 1) nieuwe kennis over het ontwerpen van verantwoorde AI in mediatoepassingen, 2) op media toegespitste ethische instrumenten, en 3) verandering in de deelnemende mediaorganisaties ten aanzien van verantwoorde AI door nauwe samenwerking met praktijkpartners in het onderzoek.
Receiving the first “Rijbewijs” is always an exciting moment for any teenager, but, this also comes with considerable risks. In the Netherlands, the fatality rate of young novice drivers is five times higher than that of drivers between the ages of 30 and 59 years. These risks are mainly because of age-related factors and lack of experience which manifests in inadequate higher-order skills required for hazard perception and successful interventions to react to risks on the road. Although risk assessment and driving attitude is included in the drivers’ training and examination process, the accident statistics show that it only has limited influence on the development factors such as attitudes, motivations, lifestyles, self-assessment and risk acceptance that play a significant role in post-licensing driving. This negatively impacts traffic safety. “How could novice drivers receive critical feedback on their driving behaviour and traffic safety? ” is, therefore, an important question. Due to major advancements in domains such as ICT, sensors, big data, and Artificial Intelligence (AI), in-vehicle data is being extensively used for monitoring driver behaviour, driving style identification and driver modelling. However, use of such techniques in pre-license driver training and assessment has not been extensively explored. EIDETIC aims at developing a novel approach by fusing multiple data sources such as in-vehicle sensors/data (to trace the vehicle trajectory), eye-tracking glasses (to monitor viewing behaviour) and cameras (to monitor the surroundings) for providing quantifiable and understandable feedback to novice drivers. Furthermore, this new knowledge could also support driving instructors and examiners in ensuring safe drivers. This project will also generate necessary knowledge that would serve as a foundation for facilitating the transition to the training and assessment for drivers of automated vehicles.
Moderatie van lezersreacties onder nieuwsartikelen is erg arbeidsintensief. Met behulp van kunstmatige intelligentie wordt moderatie mogelijk tegen een redelijke prijs. Aangezien elke toepassing van kunstmatige intelligentie eerlijk en transparant moet zijn, is het belangrijk om te onderzoeken hoe media hieraan kunnen voldoen.
