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

The aggregation of many independent estimates can outperform the mostaccurate individual judgment. This centenarian finding, popularly known as thewisdom of crowds, has been applied to problems ranging from the diagnosis ofcancer to financial forecasting. It is widely believed that social influenceundermines collective wisdom by reducing the diversity of opinions within thecrowd. Here, we show that if a large crowd is structured in small independentgroups, deliberation and social influence within groups improve the crowd'scollective accuracy. We asked a live crowd (N=5180) to respond togeneral-knowledge questions (e.g., what is the height of the Eiffel Tower?).Participants first answered individually, then deliberated and made consensusdecisions in groups of five, and finally provided revised individual estimates.We found that averaging consensus decisions was substantially more accuratethan aggregating the initial independent opinions. Remarkably, combining as fewas four consensus choices outperformed the wisdom of thousands of individuals.

Aggregated knowledge from a small number of debates outperforms the wisdom of large crowds