Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/2122/7488
AuthorsFlandoli, F.* 
Giorgi, E.* 
Aspinall, W. P.* 
Neri, A.* 
TitleComparison of a new expert elicitation model with the Classical Model, equal weights and single experts, using a cross-validation technique
Issue DateOct-2011
Series/Report no.10/96(2011)
DOI10.1016/j.ress.2011.05.012
URIhttp://hdl.handle.net/2122/7488
KeywordsExpert elicitation
Expert judgement
Subjective probability
Cross-validation
Cooke Classical Model
Expected Relative Frequency model
Subject Classification04. Solid Earth::04.04. Geology::04.04.99. General or miscellaneous 
04. Solid Earth::04.04. Geology::04.04.08. Sediments: dating, processes, transport 
05. General::05.01. Computational geophysics::05.01.04. Statistical analysis 
AbstractThe problem of ranking and weighting experts' performances when quantitative judgments are being elicited for decision support is considered. A new scoring model, the Expected Relative Frequency model, is presented, based on the closeness between central values provided by the expert and known values used for calibration. Using responses from experts in five different elicitation datasets, a cross-validation technique is used to compare this new approach with the Cooke Classical Model, the Equal Weights model, and individual experts. The analysis is performed using alternative reward schemes designed to capture proficiency either in quantifying uncertainty, or in estimating true central values. Results show that although there is only a limited probability that one approach is consistently better than another, the Cooke Classical Model is generally the most suitable for assessing uncertainties, whereas the new ERF model should be preferred if the goal is central value estimation accuracy.
Appears in Collections:Papers Published / Papers in press

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
RESS_Flandoli_etal_2011.pdf1.56 MBAdobe PDFView/Open
Show full item record

Page view(s)

92
Last Week
0
Last month
0
checked on Aug 17, 2017

Download(s)

29
checked on Aug 17, 2017

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric