An official website of the United States government
Abstract Mathematical models are increasingly adopted for setting disease prevention and control targets. As model-informed policies are implemented, however, the inaccuracies of some forecasts become apparent, for example overprediction of infection burdens and intervention impacts. Here, we attribute these discrepancies to methodological limitations in capturing the heterogeneities of real-world systems. The mechanisms underpinning risk factors of infection and their interactions determine individual propensities to acquire disease. These factors are potentially so numerous and complex that to attain a full mechanistic description is likely unfeasible. To contribute constructively to the development of health policies, model developers either leave factors out (reductionism) or adopt a broader but coarse description (holism). In our view, predictive capacity requires holistic descriptions of heterogeneity which are currently underutilised in infectious disease epidemiology, in comparison to other population disciplines, such as non-communicable disease epidemiology, demography, ecology and evolution.
more »
« less
Interdisciplinarity can aid the spread of better methods between scientific communities
Why do bad methods persist in some academic disciplines, even when they have been widely rejected in others? What factors allow good methodological advances to spread across disciplines? In this paper, we investigate some key features determining the success and failure of methodological spread between the sciences. We introduce a formal model that considers factors like methodological competence and reviewer bias toward one’s own methods. We show how these self-preferential biases can protect poor methodology within scientific communities, and lack of reviewer competence can contribute to failures to adopt better methods. We then use a second model to argue that input from outside disciplines can help break down barriers to methodological improvement. In doing so, we illustrate an underappreciated benefit of interdisciplinarity.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1922424
- PAR ID:
- 10387411
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Collective Intelligence
- Volume:
- 1
- Issue:
- 2
- ISSN:
- 2633-9137
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 263391372211318
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
We consider the problem of determining a binary ground truth using advice from a group of independent reviewers (experts) who express their guess about a ground truth correctly with some independent probability (competence) $$p_i$$. In this setting, when all reviewers are competent with $$p \geq 0.5$$, the Condorcet Jury Theorem tells us that adding more reviewers increases the overall accuracy, and if all $$p_i$$'s are known, then there exists an optimal weighting of the reviewers. However, in practical settings, reviewers may be noisy or incompetent, i.e., $$p_i \leq 0.5$$, and the number of experts may be small, so the asymptotic Condorcet Jury Theorem is not practically relevant. In such cases we explore appointing one or more chairs (judges) who determine the weight of each reviewer for aggregation, creating multiple levels. However, these chairs may be unable to correctly identify the competence of the reviewers they oversee, and therefore unable to compute the optimal weighting. We give conditions on when a set of chairs is able to weight the reviewers optimally, and depending on the competence distribution of the agents, give results about when it is better to have more chairs or more reviewers. Through simulations we show that in some cases it is better to have more chairs, but in many cases it is better to have more reviewers.more » « less
-
We investigate the problem of determining a binary ground truth using advice from a group of independent reviewers (experts) who express their guess about a ground truth correctly with some independent probability (competence) p_i. In this setting, when all reviewers are competent with p >= 0.5, the Condorcet Jury Theorem tells us that adding more reviewers increases the overall accuracy, and if all p_i's are known, then there exists an optimal weighting of the reviewers. However, in practical settings, reviewers may be noisy or incompetent, i.e., p_i < 0.5, and the number of experts may be small, so the asymptotic Condorcet Jury Theorem is not practically relevant. In such cases we explore appointing one or more chairs (judges) who determine the weight of each reviewer for aggregation, creating multiple levels. However, these chairs may be unable to correctly identify the competence of the reviewers they oversee, and therefore unable to compute the optimal weighting. We give conditions when a set of chairs is able to weight the reviewers optimally, and depending on the competence distribution of the agents, give results about when it is better to have more chairs or more reviewers. Through numerical simulations we show that in some cases it is better to have more chairs, but in many cases it is better to have more reviewers.more » « less
-
We consider the problem of determining a binary ground truth using advice from a group of independent reviewers (experts) who express their guess about a ground truth correctly with some independent probability (competence) 𝑝 . In this setting, when all reviewers 𝑖 are competent with 𝑝 ≥ 0.5, the Condorcet Jury Theorem tells us that adding more reviewers increases the overall accuracy, and if all 𝑝 ’s are known, then there exists an optimal weighting of the 𝑖 reviewers. However, in practical settings, reviewers may be noisy or incompetent, i.e., 𝑝𝑖 ≤ 0.5, and the number of experts may be small, so the asymptotic Condorcet Jury Theorem is not practically relevant. In such cases we explore appointing one or more chairs ( judges) who determine the weight of each reviewer for aggregation, creating multiple levels. However, these chairs may be unable to correctly identify the competence of the reviewers they oversee, and therefore unable to compute the optimal weighting. We give conditions on when a set of chairs is able to weight the reviewers optimally, and depending on the competence distribution of the agents, give results about when it is better to have more chairs or more reviewers. Through simulations we show that in some cases it is better to have more chairs, but in many cases it is better to have more reviewers.more » « less
-
Abstract Coupled human‐water systems (CHWS) are diverse and have been studied across a wide variety of disciplines. Integrating multiple disciplinary perspectives on CHWS provides a comprehensive and actionable understanding of these complex systems. While interdisciplinary integration has often remained elusive, specific combinations of disciplines might be comparably easier to integrate (compatible), and/or their combination might be particularly likely to uncover previously unobtainable insights (complementary). This paper systematically identifies such promising combinations by mapping disciplines along a common set of topical, philosophical, and methodological dimensions. It also identifies key challenges and lessons for multidisciplinary research teams seeking to integrate highly promising (complementary) but poorly compatible disciplines. Applied to eight disciplines that span the environmental physical sciences and the quantitative and qualitative social sciences, we found that promising combinations of disciplines identified by the typology broadly reproduce patterns of recent interdisciplinary collaborative research revealed by a bibliometric analysis. We also found that some disciplines are centrally located within the typology by being compatible and complementary to multiple other disciplines along distinct dimensions. This points to the potential for these disciplines to act as catalysts for wider interdisciplinary integration. This article is categorized under:Engineering Water > MethodsHuman Water > MethodsScience of Water > Methodsmore » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.1177/26339137221131816
