You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
The Psychology of Uncertainty and Three-Valued Truth Tables
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychology, September 2018
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01479 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jean Baratgin, Guy Politzer, David E. Over, Tatsuji Takahashi |
| Abstract |
Psychological research on people's understanding of natural language connectives has traditionally used truth table tasks, in which participants evaluate the truth or falsity of a compound sentence given the truth or falsity of its components in the framework of propositional logic. One perplexing result concerned the indicative conditional if A then C which was often evaluated as true when A and C are true, false when A is true and C is false but irrelevant" (devoid of value) when A is false (whatever the value of C). This was called the "psychological defective table of the conditional." Here we show that far from being anomalous the "defective" table pattern reveals a coherent semantics for the basic connectives of natural language in a trivalent framework. This was done by establishing participants' truth tables for negation, conjunction, disjunction, conditional, and biconditional, when they were presented with statements that could be certainly true, certainly false, or neither. We review systems of three-valued tables from logic, linguistics, foundations of quantum mechanics, philosophical logic, and artificial intelligence, to see whether one of these systems adequately describes people's interpretations of natural language connectives. We find that de Finetti's (1936/1995) three-valued system is the best approximation to participants' truth tables. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | 20% |
| India | 1 | 20% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 2 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 25 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 4 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 4% |
| Professor | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 5 | 20% |
| Unknown | 10 | 40% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 10 | 40% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 4% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 4% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 9 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 September 2018.
All research outputs
#13,269,322
of 23,098,660 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#12,480
of 30,491 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#163,458
of 335,363 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#397
of 737 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,098,660 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,491 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 335,363 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 737 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.