Difference between revisions of "Words of estimative probability"

From SubSurfWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(added table)
 
m (typo)
 
(15 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
Words we use to communicate uncertainty.
 +
 +
==Sherman Kent==
 +
[[Wikipedia:Sherman Kent|Sherman Kent]] was a CIA analyst in the Cold War and promoted a scheme of probabilities for specific words and phrases<ref>Sherman Kent, Words of Estimative Probability, CIA Studies in Intelligence, Fall 1964. [https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/sherman-kent-and-the-board-of-national-estimates-collected-essays/6words.html As a web page.]</ref>. This is the scheme used in Agile's [[Risk*]] mobile app.
 +
 
{|  class="wikitable"  
 
{|  class="wikitable"  
| 100%
+
| 100%|| || Certain
|  
 
| Certain
 
 
|-  
 
|-  
| 93%
+
| 93%|| give or take about 6%|| Almost certain
| give or take about 6%
 
| Almost certain
 
 
|-  
 
|-  
| 75%
+
| 75%|| give or take about 12%|| Probable
| give or take about 12%
 
| Probable
 
 
|-  
 
|-  
| 50%
+
| 50%|| give or take about 10%|| Chances about even
| give or take about 10%
 
| Chances about even
 
 
|-  
 
|-  
| 30%
+
| 30%|| give or take about 10%|| Probably not
| give or take about 10%
 
| Probably not
 
 
|-  
 
|-  
| 7%
+
| 7%|| give or take about 5%|| Almost certainly not
| give or take about 5%
 
| Almost certainly not
 
 
|-  
 
|-  
| 0%
+
| 0% || || Impossible
|  
 
| Impossibile
 
 
|}
 
|}
 +
 +
==Pete Rose==
 +
[[File:McLane_etal_Figure3.png|thumb|300px|Figure 3 from McLane et al 2008<ref name=McLane />]]
 +
This is Figure 18 in Rose (2001<ref>Rose, P (2001), Risk Analysis and Management of Petroleum Exploration Ventures, AAPG Methods in Exploration Series, number 12.</ref>).
 +
 +
{|  class="wikitable"
 +
| 100%|| Will occur
 +
|-
 +
| 90–97%|| Virtual certainty
 +
|-
 +
| 60–79%|| Reasonable geologic confidence
 +
|-
 +
| 40–59%|| Significant uncertainty (50% = "toss up")
 +
|-
 +
| 20–39%|| Less likely present than absent
 +
|-
 +
| 1–19%|| High-risk geologic factor
 +
|-
 +
| 0% ||Won't occur
 +
|}
 +
 +
Rose's consulting firm performed a study similar to the O'Brien paper mentioned below. They reported on it in McLane et al (2008)<ref name=McLane>McLane, Mark, James Gouveia, Gary P. Citron, James MacKay, and Peter Rose (2008), Responsible Reporting of Uncertain Petroleum Reserves. AAPG Bulletin 92 (10), p 1431–1452. [http://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-29-07/s72907-24.pdf Also available online at the SEC.]</ref>. Here (right) they report on the range of confidence levels associated with words and phrases:
 +
 +
==IPCC==
 +
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has recommended<ref>IPCC (2005), Guidance Notes for Lead Authors of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report on Addressing Uncertainties, July 2005. [http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/supporting-material/uncertainty-guidance-note.pdf PDF version.]</ref> some language for communicating likelihood.
 +
 +
{|  class="wikitable"
 +
| &gt;99%|| Virtually certain
 +
|-
 +
| &gt;90%|| Very likely
 +
|-
 +
| &gt;66%|| Likely
 +
|-
 +
| 33 to 66%|| About as likely as not
 +
|-
 +
| &lt;33%|| Unlikely
 +
|-
 +
| &lt;10%|| Very unlikely
 +
|-
 +
| &lt;1% ||Exceptionally unlikely
 +
|}
 +
 +
==Meta-ambiguity==
 +
O'Brien (1989<ref>O'Brien, B (1989), Words or numbers? The evaluation of probability expressions in general practice. Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners 39, p 98–100, March 1989. [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1711769/pdf/jroyalcgprac00003-0013.pdf Link to PDF.]</ref>) reported on the inherent ambiguity of WEPs in general medical practice. He interviewed 56 doctors about twenty-three words and phrases, asking them to place them on a probability scale. He then used the interquartile range of the responses as an indication of ambiguity. O'Brien also compared the interquartile range to a 3-point rating of ambiguity, as given by the respondents. Here's how his data plot:
 +
 +
[[file:WEP_Ambiguity_vs_prob.png|500px]]
 +
[[file:WEP_IQrange_vs_prob.png|500px]]
 +
 +
==External links==
 +
* [[Wikipedia:Words of Estimative Probability|Words of Estimative Probability]] — Wikipedia article
 +
* [http://www.agilegeoscience.com/journal/2011/10/13/are-you-a-poet-or-a-mathematician.html Are you a poet or a mathematician?] — blog post
 +
 +
==References==
 +
<references />

Latest revision as of 14:38, 27 November 2012

Words we use to communicate uncertainty.

Sherman Kent

Sherman Kent was a CIA analyst in the Cold War and promoted a scheme of probabilities for specific words and phrases[1]. This is the scheme used in Agile's Risk* mobile app.

100% Certain
93% give or take about 6% Almost certain
75% give or take about 12% Probable
50% give or take about 10% Chances about even
30% give or take about 10% Probably not
7% give or take about 5% Almost certainly not
0% Impossible

Pete Rose

Figure 3 from McLane et al 2008[2]

This is Figure 18 in Rose (2001[3]).

100% Will occur
90–97% Virtual certainty
60–79% Reasonable geologic confidence
40–59% Significant uncertainty (50% = "toss up")
20–39% Less likely present than absent
1–19% High-risk geologic factor
0% Won't occur

Rose's consulting firm performed a study similar to the O'Brien paper mentioned below. They reported on it in McLane et al (2008)[2]. Here (right) they report on the range of confidence levels associated with words and phrases:

IPCC

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has recommended[4] some language for communicating likelihood.

>99% Virtually certain
>90% Very likely
>66% Likely
33 to 66% About as likely as not
<33% Unlikely
<10% Very unlikely
<1% Exceptionally unlikely

Meta-ambiguity

O'Brien (1989[5]) reported on the inherent ambiguity of WEPs in general medical practice. He interviewed 56 doctors about twenty-three words and phrases, asking them to place them on a probability scale. He then used the interquartile range of the responses as an indication of ambiguity. O'Brien also compared the interquartile range to a 3-point rating of ambiguity, as given by the respondents. Here's how his data plot:

WEP Ambiguity vs prob.png WEP IQrange vs prob.png

External links

References

  1. Sherman Kent, Words of Estimative Probability, CIA Studies in Intelligence, Fall 1964. As a web page.
  2. 2.0 2.1 McLane, Mark, James Gouveia, Gary P. Citron, James MacKay, and Peter Rose (2008), Responsible Reporting of Uncertain Petroleum Reserves. AAPG Bulletin 92 (10), p 1431–1452. Also available online at the SEC.
  3. Rose, P (2001), Risk Analysis and Management of Petroleum Exploration Ventures, AAPG Methods in Exploration Series, number 12.
  4. IPCC (2005), Guidance Notes for Lead Authors of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report on Addressing Uncertainties, July 2005. PDF version.
  5. O'Brien, B (1989), Words or numbers? The evaluation of probability expressions in general practice. Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners 39, p 98–100, March 1989. Link to PDF.