On the Locus of Speed-Accuracy Trade-Off in Reaction Time: Inferences From the Lateralized Readiness Potential.

Lateralized readiness potentials (LRPs) were used to determine the stage(s) of reaction time (RT) responsible for speed-accuracy trade-offs (SATs). Speeded decisions based on several types of information were examined in 3 experiments, involving, respectively, a line discrimination task, lexical decisions, and an Erikson flanker task. Three levels of SAT were obtained in each experiment by adjusting response deadlines with an adaptive tracking algorithm. Speed stress affected the duration of RT stages both before and after the start of the LRP in all experiments. The latter effect cannot be explained by guessing strategies, by variations in response force, or as an indirect consequence of the pre-LRP effect. Contrary to most models, it suggests that SAT can occur at a late postdecisional stage. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

When laws and ethics collide: What should psychologists do?

At times the laws under which psychologists function may appear to contradict generally recognized ethical values and/or good clinical care. When these circumstances arise, psychologists must determine if a conflict really exists and, if so, seek solutions that reconcile respect for the law with their ethical values. At times, psychologists may decide to follow the law despite their ethical concerns. At other times, they may determine that a conscientious objection is warranted. The authors recommend options to consider when these situations arise and offer a decision-making process. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Technical Note: Selecting a Classification Method by Cross-Validation

If we lack relevant problem-specific knowledge, cross-validation methods may be used to select a classification method empirically. We examine this idea here to show in what senses cross-validation does and does not solve the selection problem. As illustrated empirically, cross-validation may lead to higher average performance than application of any single classification strategy, and it also cuts the risk of poor performance. On the other hand, cross-validation is no more or less a form of bias than simpler strategies, and applying it appropriately ultimately depends in the same way on prior knowledge. In fact, cross-validation may be seen as a way of applying partial information about the applicability of alternative classification strategies.     

基于Web的工程索赔决策支持系统的研究

针对我国工程索赔经验少、索赔专家稀缺的实际情况，提出了一种基于Web的工程索赔决策支持系统，首先综合了数据仓库，联机分析处理，数据挖掘技术于一体的综合决策支持系统，给出了数据仓库、模型库和知识库的具体设计，最后对系统的实现作了简要的介绍，该系统的应用旨在建立一个功能强大的在线工程索赔支持平台，共享索赔专家丰富的知识和经验，帮助承包商完成复杂的索赔工作。     

D-side: A facility and workforce planning group multi-criteria decision support system for Johnson Space Center

“To understand and protect our home planet, to explore the universe and search for life, and to inspire the next generation of explorers” is NASA's mission. The Systems Management Office at Johnson Space Center (JSC) is searching for methods to effectively manage the Center's resources to meet NASA's mission. D-Side is a group multi-criteria decision support system (GMDSS) developed to support facility decisions at JSC. D-Side uses a series of sequential and structured processes to plot facilities in a three-dimensional (3-D) graph on the basis of each facility's alignment with NASA's mission and goals, the extent to which other facilities are dependent on the facility, and the dollar value of capital investments that have been postponed at the facility relative to the facility's replacement value. A similarity factor rank orders facilities based on their Euclidean distance from Ideal and Nadir points. These similarity factors are then used to allocate capital improvement resources across facilities. We also present a parallel model that can be used to support decisions concerning allocation of human resources investments across workforce units. Finally, we present results from a pilot study where 12 experienced facility managers from NASA used D-Side and the organization's current approach to rank order and allocate funds for capital improvement across 20 facilities. Users evaluated D-Side favorably in terms of ease of use, the quality of the decision-making process, decision quality, and overall value-added. Their evaluations of D-Side were significantly more favorable than their evaluations of the current approach.     

基于行为经济的预期回报与创业决策关联分析

预期回报对决策具有决定性的影响。基于行为经济模型,认为创业决策依赖于预期回报和欲望水平之间的相互作用,并通过计量分析验证了预期回报对创业决策的影响。     

An expert decision support system for network routing: a case study

The paper presents a case study of the development of an expert decision support system which uses simple heuristic methods for fast determination of routes for simultaneous signals in a transmission network of limited capacity. It illustrates how heuristic solutions can be embodied in a model-based DSS and how the standard decision support literature, although intuitively appealing, provides little practical assistance in system construction or classification     

现场地质预测与决策技术

油气的生成、运移、分布、成藏、保存具有规律性，技术人员可以依据其规律性对地下地质情况进行推理、预测和决策。钻井过程的现场地质预测技术方法主要是外推法、因果法和直观法三大类。外推法是常用的预测方法，包含了岩性、沉积旋回、标志层、标准层、重矿物等岩石地层学对比方法和生物地层学方法及地球物理方法。现场地质预测与决策是通过确定预测目标、收集相关资料、进行对比分析、形成地质预测结果、拟定地质决策方案、方案优选、方案实施等环节来完成。该技术是现场地质监督的核心技术，在实践中取得显著成效。     

Using the analytic network process (ANP) in a SWOT analysis - A case study for a textile firm

Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) analysis does not provide an analytical means to determine the importance of the identified factors or the ability to assess decision alternatives according to these factors. Although the analysis successfully pinpoints the factors, individual factors are usually described briefly and very generally. For this reason, SWOT analysis possesses deficiencies in the measurement and evaluation steps. Although the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) technique removes these deficiencies, it does not allow for measurement of the possible dependencies among the factors. The AHP method assumes that the factors presented in the hierarchical structure are independent; however, this assumption may be inappropriate in light of certain internal and external environmental effects. Therefore, it is necessary to employ a form of SWOT analysis that measures and takes into account the possible dependency among the factors. This paper demonstrates a process for quantitative SWOT analysis that can be performed even when there is dependence among strategic factors. The proposed algorithm uses the analytic network process (ANP), which allows measurement of the dependency among the strategic factors, as well as AHP, which is based on the independence between the factors. Dependency among the SWOT factors is observed to effect the strategic and sub-factor weights, as well as to change the strategy priorities.     

A priori ordering protocols to support consensus-building in multiple stakeholder contexts

In a complex social, political, economic, technological, and/or environmental context, corporate, military, government, and other organizations are often faced with collective decision-making situations. The rationale for group decision exercises is that the judgment of many will usually prove superior to the judgment of one. However, it has been shown that collective decision exercises are often highly dependent on matters of perspective, values and opinion, all of which - being essentially subjective in nature - are beyond the reach of existing formal decision technology. Furthermore, it can be expected that many collective decision exercises - particularly those of strategic import - will not lend themselves to the quantitative analysis instruments that have long dominated the management and decision science repertoire. This does not, however, mean that they must remain entirely and forever outside the bounds of scientific rationality. The ordering protocols which are currently available do not have enough technical mechanics to be relied upon to bring us to any satisfying resolution of a priori disputation. Hence, we propose an a priori ordering reference model that might support consensus-building in a multiple stakeholders context. In order to detect whether the subjective arguments are products of proper reasons or merely instances of raw rhetoric and to suggest how any logical or syntactical flaws might best be repaired, we propose logical ordering facilities and protocols for integrating procedural and instrumental provisions for a group-decision process with two lines of technical innovation: the superimpositional ordering function and the logical ordering support facilities.