Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33825984›Full record

ArticleCognitive research: principles and implications2021

Spatially and temporally distributed data foraging decisions in disciplinary field science.

Cristina G Wilson, Feifei Qian, Douglas J Jerolmack, Sonia Roberts, Jonathan Ham, Daniel Koditschek, Thomas F Shipley

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cognitive research: principles and implications, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Cristina G WilsonDepartment of Psychology, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA. cristina.wilson@temple.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-9639-2752
Feifei QianDepartment of Electrical and Systems Engineering, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Douglas J JerolmackDepartment of Earth and Environmental Science, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Sonia RobertsDepartment of Electrical and Systems Engineering, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Jonathan HamDepartment of Psychology, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Daniel KoditschekDepartment of Electrical and Systems Engineering, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Thomas F ShipleyDepartment of Psychology, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

How do scientists generate and weight candidate queries for hypothesis testing, and how does learning from observations or experimental data impact query selection? Field sciences offer a compelling context to ask these questions because query selection and adaptation involves consideration of the spatiotemporal arrangement of data, and therefore closely parallels classic search and foraging behavior. Here we conduct a novel simulated data foraging study-and a complementary real-world case study-to determine how spatiotemporal data collection decisions are made in field sciences, and how search is adapted in response to in-situ data. Expert geoscientists evaluated a hypothesis by collecting environmental data using a mobile robot. At any point, participants were able to stop the robot and change their search strategy or make a conclusion about the hypothesis. We identified spatiotemporal reasoning heuristics, to which scientists strongly anchored, displaying limited adaptation to new data. We analyzed two key decision factors: variable-space coverage, and fitting error to the hypothesis. We found that, despite varied search strategies, the majority of scientists made a conclusion as the fitting error converged. Scientists who made premature conclusions, due to insufficient variable-space coverage or before the fitting error stabilized, were more prone to incorrect conclusions. We found that novice undergraduates used the same heuristics as expert geoscientists in a simplified version of the scenario. We believe the findings from this study could be used to improve field science training in data foraging, and aid in the development of technologies to support data collection decisions.

Indexed as

HeuristicsHumansHuman–robot interactionInformation foragingInformation searchMetascienceSpatial heuristics

Identifiers

PMID33825984
PMCPMC8026803

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.