{"id":6653,"date":"2017-04-05T14:39:03","date_gmt":"2017-04-05T13:39:03","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/?p=6653"},"modified":"2017-04-05T14:39:03","modified_gmt":"2017-04-05T13:39:03","slug":"another-calibration-test","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/2017\/04\/another-calibration-test\/","title":{"rendered":"Another calibration test"},"content":{"rendered":"

See also previous results.<\/em> <\/a><\/p>\n

I stumbled upon another calibration test: http:\/\/calibratedprobabilityassessment.org\/<\/p>\n

This one is almost entirely based on distances between US cities. I don’t even know where all the states are, so this involved a lot of guessing. But apparently, I’m quite a bit better at this than I thought:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

The test is not quite good for multiple reasons:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. It’s almost entirely based on US cities, making it very US-centric. It would be better if it was based on world cities, say, the top 100 largest cities in the world. Yes, I’m aware that calibration tests are semi-independent of content knowledge, but they are not entirely independent.<\/li>\n
  2. They don’t provide the data from the test. This could be interesting.<\/li>\n
  3. They don’t provide any numerical output. The graph above is not so easy to interpret because it lacks e.g. confidence bands. By the looks of it, I was spot on for the 80-90% bands, but I think this one was based on only a few items as I didn’t select that category often.<\/li>\n
  4. They seem to choose city pairs at random. Some of them end up being meaningless. I had one with the same city twice! And also had one without any question at all, simply had TRUE or FALSE.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    In general, it appears I’m underconfident.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    See also previous results. I stumbled upon another calibration test: http:\/\/calibratedprobabilityassessment.org\/ This one is almost entirely based on distances between US cities. I don’t even know where all the states are, so this involved a lot of guessing. But apparently, I’m quite a bit better at this than I thought: The test is not quite […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":17,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1653],"tags":[2514,2515,2513],"class_list":["post-6653","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-psychology","tag-calibration","tag-confidence","tag-test-results","entry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6653","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/17"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6653"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6653\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6655,"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6653\/revisions\/6655"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6653"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6653"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6653"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}