Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 10

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 14 of the 14 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

“ObjectivAIze: Measuring performance and biases in augmented business decision systems,”

Baudel, Thomas, Verbockhaven, Manon, Cousergue, Victoire, Roy, Guillaume, Laarach, Rida·2021·Lecture Notes in Computer Science
DOI 10.1007/978-3-030-85613-7_22
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/978-3-030-85613-7_22

Cites

14 of 14 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 14 references

Research works printed but not linked: 35

  1. Alberdi, E., Strigini, L., Povyakalo, A.A., Ayton, P.: Why are people’s decisions sometimes worse with computer support? In: Buth, B., Rabe, G., Seyfarth, T. (eds.) SAFECOMP 2009. LNCS, vol. 5775, pp. 18–31. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-04468-7_3 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Alexander, V., Blinder, C., Zak, P.J.: Why trust an algorithm? Performance, cognition, and neurophysiology. Comput. Hum. Behav. 89, 279–288 (2018). ISSN 0747-5632. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.07.026 · DOI
  3. Amershi, S., et al.: Guidelines for human-AI interaction. In: Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2019), Paper 3, pp. 1–13. Association for Computing Machinery, New York (2019). https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300233 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Anderson, C.: The psychology of doing nothing: forms of decision avoidance result from reason and emotion. Psychol. Bull. 129(1), 139–167 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.1.139. PMID 12555797. SSRN 895727 · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.1.139 · Paper page
  5. Elin Bahner, J., Hüper, A.-D., Manzey, D.: Misuse of automated decision aids: complacency, automation bias and the impact of training experience. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 66(9), 688–699 (2008). ISSN 1071-5819. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2008.06.001 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Burton, J.W., Stein, M.-K., Jensen, T.B.: A systematic review of algorithm aversion in augmented decision making. J. Behav. Dec. Making 33, 220–239 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.2155 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Business Rules Journal: A brief history of the business rule approach, 3rd edn. Bus. Rules J. 9(11) (2008). http://www.brcommunity.com/a2008/b448.html
  8. Cabitza, F.: Biases affecting human decision making in AI-supported second opinion settings. In: Torra, V., Narukawa, Y., Pasi, G., Viviani, M. (eds.) MDAI 2019. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 11676, pp. 283–294. Springer, Cham (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26773-5_25 · DOI
  9. Castelo, N., Bos, M.W., Lehmann, D.R.: Task-dependent algorithm aversion. J. Mark. Res. 56(5), 809–825 (2019) · DOI · Paper page
  10. Chalmers (ed.): The Extended Mind, Philosophy of Mind: Classical and Contemporary Readings. Oxford University Press (2002)
  11. Dijksterhuis, A., Bos, M.W., Nordgren, L.F., Van Baaren, R.B.: On making the right choice: the deliberation-without-attention effect. Science 311(5763), 1005–1007 (2006) · DOI · Paper page
  12. Dimara, E., Bailly, G., Bezerianos, A., Franconeri, S.: Mitigating the attraction effect with visualizations. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. Inst. Electr. Electron. Eng. 25(1), 850–860 (2019). TVCG 2019 (InfoVis 2018). https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2018.2865233. ⟨hal-01845004v2⟩ · DOI
  13. Dimara, E., Franconeri, S., Plaisant, C., Bezerianos, A., Dragicevic, P.: A task-based taxonomy of cognitive biases for information visualization. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 26(2), 1413–1432 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2018.2872577 · DOI
  14. Dimara, E., Bezerianos, A., Dragicevic, P.: Conceptual and methodological issues in evaluating multidimensional visualizations for decision support. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. (2018) · DOI
  15. Frees, E.: Longitudinal and Panel Data: Analysis and Applications in the Social Sciences. Cambridge University Press, New York (2004) · DOI · Paper page
  16. Gigerenzer, G., Gaissmaier, W.: Decision making: nonrational theories. In: Wright, J.D. (ed.) International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edn., pp. 911–916. Elsevier (2015). ISBN 9780080970875. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.26017-0 · DOI
  17. Gombolay, M.C., Gutierrez, R.A., Clarke, S.G., Sturla, G.F., Shah, J.A.: Decision-making authority, team efficiency and human worker satisfaction in mixed human–robot teams. Auton. Robot. 39(3), 293–312 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10514-015-9457-9 · DOI · Paper page
  18. Hafenbrädl, S., Waeger, D., Marewski, J.N., Gigerenzer, G.: Applied decision making with fast-and-frugal heuristics. J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 5(2), 215–231 (2016). ISSN 2211-3681. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2016.04.011 · DOI
  19. Hastie, R., Dawes, R.: Rational Choice in an Uncertain World, The Psychology of Judgment and Decision Making, 2nd edn. Sage Publications (2009)
  20. Jeston, J., Nelis, J.: Business Process Management. Routledge, 21 January 2014. ISBN 9781136172984 · doi:10.4324/9780203081327
  21. Khenissi, S.: Modeling and counteracting exposure bias in recommender systems. Electronic theses and dissertations. Paper 3182 (2019). https://doi.org/10.18297/etd/3182 · DOI
  22. Knijnenburg, B.P., Willemsen, M.C., Gantner, Z., et al.: Explaining the user experience of recommender systems. User Model. User-Adap. Inter. 22, 441–504 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11257-011-9118-4 · DOI · Paper page
  23. Knijnenburg, B.P., Reijmer, N.J.M., Willemsen, M.C.: Each to his own: how different users call for different interaction methods in recommender systems. In: Proceedings of the Fifth ACM Conference on Recommender Systems (RecSys 2011), pp. 141–148. Association for Computing Machinery, New York (2011). https://doi.org/10.1145/2043932.2043960 · DOI
  24. Lee, M.K., Kusbit, D., Metsky, E., Dabbish, L.: Working with machines: the impact of algorithmic and data-driven management on human workers. In: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2015), pp. 1603–1612. Association for Computing Machinery, New York (2015). https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702548 · DOI · Paper page
  25. Maggi, F.M., Di Francescomarino, C., Dumas, M., Ghidini, C.: Predictive monitoring of business processes. In: Jarke, M., et al. (eds.) CAiSE 2014. LNCS, vol. 8484, pp. 457–472. Springer, Cham (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07881-6_31 · DOI
  26. Miller, T.: Explanation in artificial intelligence: insights from the social sciences. Artif. Intell. 267, 1–38 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2018.07.007 · DOI · Paper page
  27. Onnasch, L.: Crossing the boundaries of automation—function allocation and reliability. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 76, 12–21 (2015). ISSN 1071-5819. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2014.12.004 · DOI
  28. Romanov, D., Kazantsev, N., Edgeeva, E.: The presence of order-effect bias in Moscow administration. In: Di Ciccio, C., et al. (eds.) BPM 2019. LNBIP, vol. 361, pp. 337–341. Springer, Cham (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30429-4_26 · DOI
  29. Frederick, S.: Cognitive reflection and decision making. J. Econ. Perspect. 19(4), 25–42 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1257/089533005775196732 · DOI · Paper page
  30. Morris, R., Mintz, S.: Cognitive processes and decision making in accounting, Chapter 2. In: Ethical Obligations and Decision-Making in Accounting: Text and Cases, 4th edn. McGraw Hill (2017). ISBN10: 1259543471
  31. Tissandier, E., Baudel, T.: AIDA: Automatiser la prise de décisions métier en gardant l’humain dans la boucle. 31e conférence francophone sur l’Interaction Homme-Machine (IHM 2019), December 2019, Grenoble, France, pp. 2:1–2:6 (2019). ⟨hal-02407617⟩
  32. Shneiderman, B.: Human-centered artificial intelligence: three fresh ideas. AIS Trans. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 12(3), 109–124 (2020). https://doi.org/10.17705/1thci.00131 · DOI · Paper page
  33. Von Halle, B.: Business Rules Applied. Wiley (2001). ISBN 0-471-41293-7
  34. Yeomans, M., Shah, A., Mullainathan, S., Kleinberg, J.: Making sense of recommendations. J. Behav. Dec. Making 32, 403–414 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.2118 · DOI · Paper page
  35. Yetgin, E., Jensen, M., Shaft, T.: Complacency and intentionality in IT use and continuance. AIS Trans. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 7(1), 17–42 (2015) · DOI

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Baudel, T., Verbockhaven, M., Cousergue, V., Roy, G., & Laarach, R.
ORCID
Baudel, Thomas
Venue
Lecture Notes in Computer Science
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published
2021
Pages
300-320
ISSN
  • 0302-9743
  • 1611-3349
DOI
10.1007/978-3-030-85613-7_22
Cited by
10
References
14
Language
en
Licence

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.