
doi: 10.1007/bf00485387
Often a group of people need to find a consensus. One strategy for finding a consensus is to try to reach unanimous agreement by a process of exchange of information and rational argument. But where that fails we need to find a consensus without reaching unanimity. A special but important case occurs when the people in the group are making estimates of some numerical quantity, for example, a probability. In that case there is an especially simple procedure: take the arithmetic mean of the estimates. An equally simple procedure would be to take the median. But neither procedure takes into account differences in the expertise of the members of the group, which differences might, in a favorable case, be agreed upon by members of the group. In order to take these differences into consideration it has been proposed by Lehrer and Wagner,1 that the consensual estimate, Pc be the sum of the products of the individual estimates, Px.... ,Pn multiplied by weights, Wi,... ,wn which reflect the expertise of the individuals. Thus
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 2 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
