A note on an empirical evaluation of the isis procedure

Baker, Robert F.; Young, Forrest W.

doi:10.1007/bf02291766

Cited by 9 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Previous studies of these stimuli produced three-dimensional solutions (Baker, 1974;Baker & Young, 1975;Henley, 1969), of which only the first two dimensions were usually interpretable.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Previous interactive scaling systems mentioned (Baker & Young, 1975;Young & Cliff, 1972) assumed judgments to be ratio (that is, ratio distances or, minimally, linear transformations of ratio distances). This assumption was necessary because until relatively recently, computer technology did not exist to allow an interactive program running on a minicomputer dedicated to human experimentation to use nonmetric transformations.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Nonmetric Interactive Multidimensional Scaling with Multiple Subjects

Hamer

1981

Applied Psychological Measurement

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A method for nonmetric interactive multidimensional scaling (MDS) of similarity judgments is described which is also capable of using responses from previous judges to supplement the judgments of a current subject. The method combines recent advances in interactive MDS with recent advances in numerical methods in MDS to produce a program capable (1) of performing nonmetric interactive MDS and (2) of fitting a wide variety of models, such as the individual differences model. The empirical investigation compared three versions of the system: (1) a metric simple Euclidean modelfitting version (similar to previous interactive scaling programs); (2) a metric individual differences version; and (3) a nonmetric individual differences version. There were no statistically significant differences among the three versions. This paper describes a method for nonmetric interactive multidimensional scaling (MDS) of judgments capable of using responses from previous judges to supplement the judgments of a current subject. The computer algorithm uses two mathematical models: (1) the interactive scaling model (Young & Cliff, 1972), which derives an r-dimensional space containing the stimuli in which r +1 of the points lie on the axes of the space and (2) a Euclidean distance model used to represent the subject's judgments about successive subsets of the stimuli.

show abstract

“…Previous studies of these stimuli produced three-dimensional solutions (Baker, 1974;Baker & Young, 1975;Henley, 1969), of which only the first two dimensions were usually interpretable.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nonmetric Interactive Multidimensional Scaling with Multiple Subjects

Hamer

1981

Applied Psychological Measurement

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…72 Redish went so far as to contend that the First Amendment protection of speech serves only one purpose-to promote "individual self-realization." 73 Other contemporary legal scholars, including Lee Bollinger, 74 Kent Greenawalt 75 and Steven Shiffrin, 76 ask different questions about the value of speech and what the First Amendment should and does mean.…”

Section: Reassessing Hate Speech 287mentioning

confidence: 99%

Modern Power and the First Amendment: Reassessing Hate Speech

Demaske¹

2004

Communication Law and Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…This result was already anticipated in Baker where the Supreme Court of Canada observed that the newly broadened scope of the duty to give reasons should be applied with "sufficient flexibility" in the sense that the reviewing court should accept "various types of written explanations for the decision as sufficient." 65 In Baker, the Supreme Court of Canada accepted the shorthand notes of the immigration officer as reasons, holding that reviewing courts must be pragmatic and "evaluate the requirements of the duty of fairness with recognition of the day-to-day realities of administrative agencies." 66 Administrative decision makers are therefore free to pay little attention to the quality of their reasoning as there is little risk that a decision will be quashed on this basis under procedural fairness.…”

Section: Inadequate Reasons and Tribunal Participationmentioning

confidence: 99%