<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="static/style.xsl"?><OAI-PMH xmlns="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/OAI-PMH.xsd"><responseDate>2026-09-21T08:01:32Z</responseDate><request verb="GetRecord" identifier="oai:dspace.mit.edu:1721.1/53066" metadataPrefix="dim">https://dspace.mit.edu/server/oai/request</request><GetRecord><record><header><identifier>oai:dspace.mit.edu:1721.1/53066</identifier><datestamp>2026-06-06T01:06:20Z</datestamp><setSpec>com_1721.1_7582</setSpec><setSpec>com_1721.1_7581</setSpec><setSpec>col_1721.1_131023</setSpec></header><metadata><dim:dim xmlns:dim="http://www.dspace.org/xmlns/dspace/dim" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:doc="http://www.lyncode.com/xoai" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.dspace.org/xmlns/dspace/dim http://www.dspace.org/schema/dim.xsd">
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="contributor" qualifier="advisor" lang="en_US">Drazen Prelec.</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="contributor" qualifier="author" lang="en_US">Weiss, Rebecca (Rebecca Jennifer)</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="contributor" qualifier="other" lang="en_US">Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Technology and Policy Program.</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="contributor" qualifier="department">Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Engineering Systems Division</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="contributor" qualifier="department">Technology and Policy Program</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="date" qualifier="accessioned">2010-03-25T14:55:51Z</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="date" qualifier="available">2010-03-25T14:55:51Z</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="date" qualifier="copyright" lang="en_US">2009</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="date" qualifier="issued" lang="en_US">2009</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="identifier" qualifier="uri">http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/53066</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="identifier" qualifier="oclc" lang="en_US">501829428</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="description" lang="en_US">Thesis (S.M. in Technology and Policy)--Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Engineering Systems Division, Technology and Policy Program, 2009.</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="description" lang="en_US">Includes bibliographical references (p. 59-63).</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="description" qualifier="abstract" lang="en_US">Uncertainty and risk are obstacles that nearly all policy-makers encounter during their careers. However, evaluating uncertainty and risk can be difficult since these concepts may be broadly defined. This may result in inaccurate estimates of risk and uncertainty. Expert elicitation is a formal, structured method of obtaining subjective expert judgment in scenarios where objective data is unobtainable. It is designed to reduce the influence of ambiguity on expert judgment, meaning that analysts may use such subjective data as if it were objectively generated. Expert elicitation methods tend to aggregate expert judgment in order to create a unified response, but determining how to combine expert opinions remains a difficult problem. In this thesis, a review of the literature and background behind defining expertise and expert elicitation will be provided. Additionally, this thesis introduces the Bayesian Truth Serum as a potential weighting algorithm for combining expert judgments. As opposed to other weighting algorithms, the Bayesian Truth Serum uses the metaknowledge of experts to create weights for aggregation. Using such information may prove superior to assuming a normal distribution of expertise or relying upon experts to provide estimates of their own expertise.</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="description" qualifier="statementofresponsibility" lang="en_US">by Rebecca Weiss.</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="description" qualifier="degree" lang="en_US">S.M. in Technology and Policy</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="format" qualifier="extent" lang="en_US">63 p.</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="language" qualifier="iso" lang="en_US">eng</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="publisher" lang="en_US">Massachusetts Institute of Technology</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="rights" lang="en_US">M.I.T. theses are protected by &#xd;
copyright. They may be viewed from this source for any purpose, but &#xd;
reproduction or distribution in any format is prohibited without written &#xd;
permission. See provided URL for inquiries about permission.</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="rights" qualifier="uri" lang="en_US">http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/7582</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="subject" lang="en_US">Engineering Systems Division.</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="subject" lang="en_US">Technology and Policy Program.</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="title" lang="en_US">Optimally aggregating elicited expertise : a proposed application of the Bayesian Truth Serum for policy analysis</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="title" qualifier="alternative" lang="en_US">Proposed application of the Bayesian Truth Serum for policy analysis</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="type" lang="en_US">Thesis</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dc" element="format" qualifier="mimetype">application/pdf</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dspace" element="authorsordered">false</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="dspace" element="entity" qualifier="type">Publication</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="others" element="access-status">unknown</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="others" element="access-status">unknown</dim:field>
   <dim:field mdschema="cerif" element="openaire" authority="" confidence="-1">&lt;Publication xmlns="https://www.openaire.eu/cerif-profile/1.1/" id="d65939bf-954c-4e08-bb4d-fe953a018597">
	&lt;Type xmlns="https://www.openaire.eu/cerif-profile/vocab/COAR_Publication_Types">http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_1843&lt;/Type>
	&lt;Language>eng&lt;/Language>
   	&lt;Title>Optimally aggregating elicited expertise : a proposed application of the Bayesian Truth Serum for policy analysis&lt;/Title>
   	&lt;Subtitle>Proposed application of the Bayesian Truth Serum for policy analysis&lt;/Subtitle>
   	&lt;PublishedIn>
    	&lt;Publication>
      	&lt;/Publication>
   	&lt;/PublishedIn>
   	&lt;PublicationDate>2009&lt;/PublicationDate>
   	&lt;Authors>
      	&lt;Author>
        	&lt;DisplayName>Weiss, Rebecca (Rebecca Jennifer)&lt;/DisplayName>
         	&lt;Affiliation>
         		&lt;OrgUnit>
         		&lt;/OrgUnit>
         	&lt;/Affiliation>
      	&lt;/Author>
	&lt;/Authors>
   	&lt;Editors>
	&lt;/Editors>
    &lt;Publishers>
        &lt;Publisher>
            &lt;DisplayName>Massachusetts Institute of Technology&lt;/DisplayName>
            &lt;OrgUnit />
        &lt;/Publisher>
    &lt;/Publishers>
    &lt;License>http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/7582&lt;/License>
    &lt;Keyword>Engineering Systems Division.&lt;/Keyword>
    &lt;Keyword>Technology and Policy Program.&lt;/Keyword>
   	&lt;Abstract>Uncertainty and risk are obstacles that nearly all policy-makers encounter during their careers. However, evaluating uncertainty and risk can be difficult since these concepts may be broadly defined. This may result in inaccurate estimates of risk and uncertainty. Expert elicitation is a formal, structured method of obtaining subjective expert judgment in scenarios where objective data is unobtainable. It is designed to reduce the influence of ambiguity on expert judgment, meaning that analysts may use such subjective data as if it were objectively generated. Expert elicitation methods tend to aggregate expert judgment in order to create a unified response, but determining how to combine expert opinions remains a difficult problem. In this thesis, a review of the literature and background behind defining expertise and expert elicitation will be provided. Additionally, this thesis introduces the Bayesian Truth Serum as a potential weighting algorithm for combining expert judgments. As opposed to other weighting algorithms, the Bayesian Truth Serum uses the metaknowledge of experts to create weights for aggregation. Using such information may prove superior to assuming a normal distribution of expertise or relying upon experts to provide estimates of their own expertise.&lt;/Abstract>
	&lt;Access xmlns="http://purl.org/coar/access_right" 
    >
    &lt;/Access>
&lt;/Publication>
</dim:field>
</dim:dim>
</metadata></record></GetRecord></OAI-PMH>