2022
DOI: 10.1162/qss_a_00189
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The confirmation of scientific theories using Bayesian causal networks and citation sentiments

Abstract: The confirmation of scientific theories is approached by combining Bayesian probabilistic methods, in particular Bayesian causal networks, and the analysis of citing sentences for highly cited papers. It is assumed that causes and their effects can be identified by linguistic methods from the citing sentences and that the cause-and-effect pairs can be equated with theories and their evidence. Further, it is proposed that citation context sentiments for “evidence” and “uncertainty” can be used to supply the req… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 32 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Of course, we do not have direct access to an individual's subjective probabilities. In contemporary science we could access the full text of scientific papers and aggregate statements to give a collective assessment of probabilities (Small, 2022). However, for historical cases focused on individual scientists, we need to rely on the statements of the scientists involved or on the accounts of historians, and especially on statements regarding whether evidence reflects favorably or unfavorably on a theory.…”
Section: Assessing Probabilitiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Of course, we do not have direct access to an individual's subjective probabilities. In contemporary science we could access the full text of scientific papers and aggregate statements to give a collective assessment of probabilities (Small, 2022). However, for historical cases focused on individual scientists, we need to rely on the statements of the scientists involved or on the accounts of historians, and especially on statements regarding whether evidence reflects favorably or unfavorably on a theory.…”
Section: Assessing Probabilitiesmentioning
confidence: 99%