Graduate studies at Western
Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (1):164-164 (1998)
|Abstract||The basic issue is the measurement of memory accuracy and how correspondence should be assessed. Problems of completeness and variations in the degree and type of inaccuracy make measurement intractably difficult. This difficulty places severe limitations on generalizing across tasks, domains, and individuals and, consequently, on theory construction.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Michael D. Lee, Mark Steyvers, Mindy de Young & Brent Miller (2012). Inferring Expertise in Knowledge and Prediction Ranking Tasks. Topics in Cognitive Science 4 (1):151-163.
Eric Barnes (1990). The Language Dependence of Accuracy. Synthese 84 (1):59 - 95.
Luca Mari (2000). Beyond the Representational Viewpoint: A New Formalization of Measurement. Measurement 27 (2):71-84.
Eran Tal (2011). How Accurate Is the Standard Second? Philosophy of Science 78 (5):1082-1096.
Hannes Leitgeb & Richard Pettigrew (2010). An Objective Justification of Bayesianism I: Measuring Inaccuracy. Philosophy of Science 77 (2):201-235.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads1 ( #291,948 of 723,043 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?