Search

Summary: Judges, doctors and managers are among those decision makers who must often choose a course of action under limited time, with limited knowledge and without the aid of a computer. Because data‐driven methods typically outperform unaided judgements, resource‐constrained practitioners can benefit from simple, statistically derived rules that can be applied mentally. In this work, we formalize long‐standing observations about the efficacy of improper linear models to construct accurate yet easily applied rules. To test the performance of this approach, we conduct a large‐scale evaluation in 22 domains and focus in detail on one: judicial decisions to release or detain defendants while they await trial. In these domains, we find that simple rules rival the accuracy of complex prediction models that base decisions on considerably more information. Further, comparing with unaided judicial decisions, we find that simple rules substantially outperform the human experts. To conclude, we present an analytical framework that sheds light on why simple rules perform as well as they do. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Online publishing, social networks, and web search have dramatically lowered the costs of producing, distributing, and discovering news articles. Some scholars argue that such technological changes increase exposure to diverse perspectives, while others worry that they increase ideological segregation. We address the issue by examining webbrowsing histories for 50,000 US-located users who regularly read online news. We find that social networks and search engines are associated with an increase in the mean ideological distance between individuals. However, somewhat counterintuitively, these same channels also are associated with an increase in an individual's exposure to material from his or her less preferred side of the political spectrum. Finally, the vast majority of online news consumption is accounted for by individuals simply visiting the home pages of their favorite, typically mainstream, news outlets, tempering the consequences--both positive and negative--of recent technological changes. We thus uncover evidence for both sides of the debate, while also finding that the magnitude of the effects is relatively modest. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is widely thought that news organizations exhibit ideological bias, but rigorously quantifying such slant has proven methodologically challenging. Through a combination of machine-learning and crowdsourcing techniques, we investigate the selection and framing of political issues in fifteen major US news outlets. Starting with 803,146 news stories published over twelve months, we first used supervised learning algorithms to identify the 14 percent of articles pertaining to political events. We then recruited 749 online human judges to classify a random subset of 10,502 of these political articles according to topic and ideological position. Our analysis yields an ideological ordering of outlets consistent with prior work. However, news outlets are considerably more similar than generally believed. Specifically, with the exception of political scandals, major news organizations present topics in a largely nonpartisan manner, casting neither Democrats nor Republicans in a particularly favorable or unfavorable light. Moreover, again with the exception of political scandals, little evidence exists of systematic differences in story selection, with all major news outlets covering a wide variety of topics with frequency largely unrelated to the outlet's ideological position. Finally, news organizations express their ideological bias not by directly advocating for a preferred political party, but rather by disproportionately criticizing one side, a convention that further moderates overall differences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]