Judgmental bootstrapping: Inferring experts' rules for forecasting
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Decisions based on regression are less likely to be subject to bias, they are consistent, the basis for the decisions can be fully explained and they are generally useful.
“As a result, decisions based on regression are less likely to be subject to bias, they are consistent, the basis for the decisions can be fully explained and they are generally useful.”
From Illusions in Regression Analysis (2011) · cites this paper as Armstrong 2001
The gains from regression-based decisions are especially well documented when compared to judgmental decisions based on the same data.
“The gains are especially well documented when compared to judgmental decisions based on the same data (Grove and Meehl 1996; Armstrong 2001).”
From Illusions in Regression Analysis (2011) · cites this paper as Armstrong 2001
Cites
Allen, P. G., & Fildes, R. (2001) · International Series in Operations Research & Management Science · doi:10.1007/978-0-306-47630-3_15 · Cited by 85 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Forecasting and operational research: a review
Fildes, R., Nikolopoulos, K., Crone, S. F., & Syntetos, A. A. (2008) · Journal of the Operational Research Society · doi:10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602597 · Cited by 287 · see citing works
Illusions in Regression Analysis
Armstrong, J. S. (2011) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.1969740 · Cited by 73 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Armstrong, J. S.
- Affiliations
- University of Pennsylvania (US)
- Corresponding author
- Armstrong, J. Scott
- ORCID
- Armstrong, J. Scott
- Venue
- International Series in Operations Research & Management Science
- Publisher
- Springer US
- Published
- 2001
- Pages
- 171-192
- ISSN
- 0884-8289 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1598221548
- Cited by
- 78
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 8.26
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International series in management science/operations research/International series in operations research & management science (publishedVersion)
- ScholarlyCommons (University of Pennsylvania) (submittedVersion)
- Scholarly Commons (University of Pennsylvania) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Forecasting Techniques and Applications
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Decision Support System Applications
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Keywords
- expert forecasting, expert systems, forecast accuracy, time series forecasting, production decisions, judgmental forecasting, forecast bias, econometric models
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
