In addition, the automated results were highly consistent with the
standard manual method, as
defined by a high overlap score (a measure
of agreement between ground
truth and automated segmentation): above 90 percent.
Of course, if someone had access to & used * any * standard for assessing evidence that was * reliably * correlated with «truth - seeking» & that could be used to determine the LR or weight to be assigned evidence in a Bayesian framework, that wouldn't be «motivated reasoning» as I've defined it; motivated reasoning refers to the tendency of individuals to assess evidence in a manner that promotes some goal or interest independent of forming an accurate judgment — such as maintaining his or her standing in an identify - defining grou
Of course, if someone had access to & used * any *
standard for assessing evidence that was * reliably * correlated with «
truth - seeking» & that could be used to determine the LR or weight to be assigned evidence in a Bayesian framework, that wouldn't be «motivated reasoning» as I've
defined it; motivated reasoning refers to the tendency
of individuals to assess evidence in a manner that promotes some goal or interest independent of forming an accurate judgment — such as maintaining his or her standing in an identify - defining grou
of individuals to assess evidence in a manner that promotes some goal or interest independent
of forming an accurate judgment — such as maintaining his or her standing in an identify - defining grou
of forming an accurate judgment — such as maintaining his or her standing in an identify -
defining group.