CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 527Forecasting Techniques and ApplicationsDecision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsCategorization, perception, and language

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

“How Probable is Probable? A Numerical Translation of Verbal Probability Expressions.”

Beyth‐Marom, Ruth·1982·Journal of Forecasting
DOI 10.1002/for.3980010305
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Abstract The reported experiment took place in a professional forecasting organization accustomed to giving verbal probability assessments (‘likely’, ‘probable’, etc.). It attempts to highlight the communication problems caused by verbal probability expressions and to offer possible solutions that are compatible with the forecasters overall perspective on their jobs Experts in the organization were first asked to give a numerical translation to 30 different verbal probability expressions most of which were taken from the organization's own published political forecasts. In a second part of the experiment the experts were given 15 paragraphs selected from the organization's political publications each of which contained at least one verbal expression of probability. Subjects were again asked to give a numerical translation to each verbal probability expression The results indicate that (a) there is a high variability in the interpretation of verbal probability expressions and (b) the variability is even higher in context. Possible reasons for the context effect are discussed and practical implications are suggested.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/for.3980010305

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 9 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Heuer R. J., 1978, Quantitative approaches to political intelligence: The CIA experience
  2. Raiffa H., 1968, Decision analysis

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 527

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Beyth‐Marom, R.
Corresponding author
Beyth‐Marom, Ruth
Venue
Journal of Forecasting
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1982-07
Volume
1
Issue
3
Pages
257-269
ISSN
  • 0277-6693 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-131X
DOI
10.1002/for.3980010305
OpenAlex
W2004776030
Cited by
527
References
9
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 63 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 11
FWCI
6.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor, 8894 d)
Locations
Journal of Forecasting (publishedVersion)
Funders
Office of Naval Research
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Forecasting Techniques and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Categorization, perception, and language
Keywords
verbal probability expressions, probability communication, political forecasting, expert opinion, context effects

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review