English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Unaided human decision making appears to systematically violate consistencyconstraints imposed by normative theories; these biases in turn appear tojustify the application of formal decision-analytic models. It is argued thatboth claims are wrong. In particular, we will argue that the "confirmationbias" is premised on an overly narrow view of how conflicting evidence is andought to be handled. Effective decision aiding should focus on supporting thecontral processes by means of which knowledge is extended into novel situationsand in which assumptions are adopted, utilized, and revised. The Non- MonotonicProbabilist represents initial work toward such an aid.

Decision Making "Biases" and Support for Assumption-Based Higher-Order Reasoning