= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
calef comments on Is this paper formally modeling human (ir)rational decision making worth understanding? - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
Comments (6)
Not being in the field, but having experience in making the judgement "Should I read this paper", here are a handful of observations:
For:
The paper has a handful of citations not entirely from the author (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=8141802968877948536&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=en) but by no means a huge number of citations.
The abstract is remarkably clear (it's clear that this is a slight extension of other author's work), and the jargon-y words are easily figured out based on gentle perusal of the paper.
It looks like this paper is actually also a chapter in a textbook (http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-11876-0_8)
Against:
I'd say it's worth reading if you're interested in it. Even the against-point above is more of a general heuristic and not necessarily a bad thing.
Even I have a chapter in a textbook, its not a measure of quality :) Conference proceedings sometimes are published as a book, with ISBN and all.
Thank you. Heuristics like these are, I think, the meta-skill I'm trying to learn at the same time.