The science of subjectivity

Geology

Volumn 40, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 95-96

  Curtis, Andrew ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACADEMIC RESEARCH; BIBLIOGRAPHY; LITERATURE REVIEW; PUBLISHING; SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY;

EID: 84855464751     PISSN: 00917613     EISSN: 19432682     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1130/focus012012.1     Document Type: Note

References (16)

1. Aspinall, W., 2010, A route to more tractable expert advice: Nature, v. 463, p. 294-295, doi:10.1038/463294a.
2. Baddeley, M.A., Curtis, A., and Wood, R.A., 2004, An introduction to prior information derived from probabilistic judgements: Elicitation of knowledge, cognitive bias and herding, in Curtis, A., and Wood, R., eds., Geological Society of London, Special Publications, v. 239, p. 15-27.
3. Bond, C.E., Lunn, R.J., Shipton, Z.K., and Lunn, A.D., 2012, What makes an expert effective at interpreting seismic images?: Geology, v. 40, p. 75-78, doi:10.1130/G32375.1.
4. Boschetti, F., and Moresi, L., 2001, Interactive inversion in geosciences: Geophysics, v. 66, p. 1226-1234, doi:10.1190/1.1487069.
5. Curtis, A., and Wood, R., 2004, Optimal elicitation of probabilistic information from experts, in Curtis, A.. and Wood, R., eds., Geological Society of London, Special Publications, v. 239, p. 127-145.
6. Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., and Tversky, A., eds., 1982, Judgement under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases: Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press, 544 p.
7. Lindley, D.V., Tversky, A., and Brown, R.V., 1979, On the reconciliation of probability assessments (with discussion): Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (General), v. 142, p. 146-180, doi:10.2307/2345078.
8. Mastrandrea, M.D., Mach, K.J., Plattner, G.-K., Edenhofer, O., Stocker, T.F., Field, C.B., Ebi, K.L., and Matschoss, P.R., 2011, The IPCC AR5 guidance on consistent treatment of uncertainties; A common approach across the working groups: Climatic Change, doi:10.1007/s10584-011-0178-6.
9. O'Hagan, A., Buck, C.E., Daneshkhah, A., Eiser, J.R., Garthwaite, P.H., Jenkinson, D.J., Oakley, J.E., and Rakow, T., 2006, Uncertain Judgements: Eliciting Experts' Probabilities: New York, Wiley, 338 p.
10. Oppenheimer, M., O'Neill, B.C., Webster, M., and Agrawala, S., 2007, The Limits of Consensus: Science, v. 317, 1505-1506.
11. Olscamp, P.J., 1965, Discourse on Method, Optics, Geometry, and Meteorology (Descartes, 1637); Translation with Intro: Indianapolis, Indiana, Bobbs- Merrill.
12. Phillips, L.D., 1999, Group elicitation of probability distributions: are many heads better than one?, in Shantaeu, J., Mellors, B., and Schum, D., eds., Decision Science and Technology: Reflections on the Contributions of Ward Edwards: Norwell, Massachusetts, Kluwer, p. 313-330.
13. Polson, D., and Curtis, A., 2010, Dynamics of uncertainty in geological interpretation: Journal of the Geological Society, v. 167, p. 5-10, doi:10.1144/0016-76492009-055.
14. 2 storage projects: Proceedings of the 2009 SPE Offshore Europe Oil & Gas Conference & Exhibition, Aberdeen, UK, 8-11 September 2009: Society of Petroleum Engineers, Publication SPE 124703.
15. Rankey, E.C., and Mitchell, J.C., 2003, That's why it's called interpretation: The role of horizon uncertainty on seismic attribute analysis: The Leading Edge, v. 22, p. 820-828, doi:10.1190/1.1614152.
16. Tarantola, A., 2005, Inverse Problem Theory and Model Parameter Estimation: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM), 342 p.