REVIEW 2 cited by
Measuring Sentence-Level and Aspect-Level (Un)certainty in Science Communications
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Certainty and uncertainty are fundamental to science communication. Hedges have widely been used as proxies for uncertainty. However, certainty is a complex construct, with authors expressing not only the degree but the type and aspects of uncertainty in order to give the reader a certain impression of what is known. Here, we introduce a new study of certainty that models both the level and the aspects of certainty in scientific findings. Using a new dataset of 2167 annotated scientific findings, we demonstrate that hedges alone account for only a partial explanation of certainty. We show that both the overall certainty and individual aspects can be predicted with pre-trained language models, providing a more complete picture of the author's intended communication. Downstream analyses on 431K scientific findings from news and scientific abstracts demonstrate that modeling sentence-level and aspect-level certainty is meaningful for areas like science communication. Both the model and datasets used in this paper are released at https://blablablab.si.umich.edu/projects/certainty/.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Modeling Public Perceptions of Science in Media
A new dataset and AI model for public perception of science news shows that perceived importance, surprise, and fun predict how much engagement science posts receive on Reddit.
-
LLM Assertiveness can be Mechanistically Decomposed into Emotional and Logical Components
Mechanistic evidence that LLM assertiveness decomposes into orthogonal emotional and logical components that steer predictions differently.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.