Sentence examples for judgments are sensitive from inspiring English sources

Metacognitive efficiency indexes the extent to which one's confidence judgments are sensitive to objective performance.

Empirical evidence shows that people's blame judgments are sensitive to the epistemic states of the agents (Lagnado & Channon, 2008).

A central claim of the structural approach is that responsibility judgments are sensitive to causal structure, both in terms of the network of causal relations between the relevant actions and events (the causal graph), and the causal functions that dictate how multiple causes combine to yield an outcome (given by the structural equations).

When told that these prints were taken from the Mayfield case, four of the five experts now concluded that they did not match, suggesting that their judgments were sensitive to context.

In summary, the data provided support for the structural model, although people's judgments were sensitive to the degree to which player's estimates deviated from the correct answer, irrespective of whether a threshold criterion was reached.

One issue to bear in mind is the character of the issues discussed: questions about the use of coercion, clinical decision making and judgment are sensitive and respondents may adjust their answers to accord with what they perceive as ethically or legally correct.

As noted above, moral luck (i.e., moral judgments that are sensitive even to chance outcomes) is substantially stronger for blame judgments than for acceptability judgments.

We have arrived at a generic naturalism that says judgments of illness are sensitive to causal antecedents of the right sort, as well as to value judgments about the effects of those causes.

In summary, we hypothesize that empathy for victims contributes to the condemnation of harm and, therefore, that (1) neural activation consistent with affective sharing will occur when learning about outcomes to victims, (2) especially among people whose moral judgments are most sensitive to outcomes, and (3) especially for types of judgment that are most sensitive to outcomes.

We tested predictions from fairness heuristic theory that justice judgments are more sensitive to early fairness-relevant information than to later fairness-relevant information and that this primacy effect is more evident when group identification is higher.

Our explanation begins with the empirical finding that judgments are more sensitive close to the category boundary, a well-described feature of human categorical perception (Shepard 1987; Tenenbaum and Griffiths 2001).