The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Rules as Generalizations
Abstract
This chapter examines the relationship between rules and descriptive generalizations in the context of decision making. The findings reveal the potential of descriptive generalization to focus on the irrelevant and suppress the relevant, and since prescriptive rules incorporate descriptive generalizations they also contain those error-producing characteristics. This chapter concludes that prescriptive rules can be either potentially or actually under- and over-inclusive.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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?
When descriptive result claims are summarized such that action guiding recommendations are communicated, this involves a broader generalization than that found in the summarized text because researchers may have deliberately avoided such recommendations due to insufficient evidence.
“When descriptive result claims are summarized such that action guiding recommendations are communicated, this involves a broader generalization than that found in the summarized text because researchers may have deliberately avoided such recommendations due to insufficient evidence to support them.”
From Generalization bias in large language model summarization of scientific research (2025) · cites this paper as [30]
Citations
Cites
Still being checked.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Generalization bias in large language model summarization of scientific research
Peters, U., & Chin-Yee, B. (2025) · Royal Society Open Science · doi:10.1098/rsos.241776 · Cited by 126
“While result claims commonly manifest in descriptive statements (e.g. ‘OCD patients benefit from CBT’), they often underlie recommendations (e.g. for policy-makers, practitioners, etc.) about a particular policy or action (e.g. ‘CBT should be recommended for OCD patients’) [30].”
Metadata
- Authors
- SCHAUER, F.
- Corresponding author
- SCHAUER, FREDERICK
- ORCID
- SCHAUER, FREDERICK
- Venue
- Playing by the Rules
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press
- Published
- 1993-02-11
- Pages
- 17-37
- OpenAlex
- W2486590973
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Oxford University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Philosophical Ethics and Theory
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Logic, Reasoning, and Knowledge
- Keywords
- decision-making, rule-based reasoning, overinclusion, cognitive biases
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
