pushing changes before continuing to work
This commit is contained in:
parent
f4d007f954
commit
24e6a2b221
|
|
@ -5,8 +5,8 @@
|
|||
"Platform": "CSET-foretell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": false,
|
||||
"Percentage": "none",
|
||||
"# Forecasts": "21",
|
||||
"# Forecasters": "21",
|
||||
"# Forecasts": "23",
|
||||
"# Forecasters": "23",
|
||||
"Description": "Related question. This question was previously issued for the period July 1 to December 31, 2020. You can view it here. The crowd's mean forecast was $73.7 billion, and the correct answer was $59.0 billion. Data and resolution details. This question resolves based on Crunchbase data. Crunchbase classifies every company under multiple “category groups.” For this question, companies are classified as “tech” if software, hardware, internet services, or information technology are among their category groups. These categories are overlapping. A company is \"private\" if it's not publicly traded. This question resolves on January 30, 2022, 30 days after the forecast period ends. The question -- and the graph below -- therefore includes only transactions entered into Crunchbase within 30 days of the date of its announcement. Historically, 80% of new funding is entered into Crunchbase within 30 days. The chart below does not include an anomalous $100 billion raised by Broadcom Limited in February 2018. The data underlying the graph is here.This question is a metric for the following scenarios: Tech Companies Threaten Democracy The Impact of COVID-19 on the ML Research Field Three Possible 2025 Worlds that Should Inform Policy Today For more on this metric, see the accompanying Foretell metric analysis: \"Are Established Tech Companies Crowding Out Startups?\"\n",
|
||||
"Stars": "★☆☆☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
|
|
@ -16,20 +16,20 @@
|
|||
"Platform": "CSET-foretell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": false,
|
||||
"Percentage": "none",
|
||||
"# Forecasts": "19",
|
||||
"# Forecasters": "19",
|
||||
"# Forecasts": "20",
|
||||
"# Forecasters": "20",
|
||||
"Description": "Related question. This question was previously issued for the period July 1 to December 31, 2020. You can view it here. The crowd's mean forecast was $19.35 billion, and the correct answer was $18.67 billion. Data and resolution details. This question resolves based on Crunchbase data. Crunchbase classifies every company under multiple “category groups.” For this question, companies are classified as “tech” if software, hardware, internet services, or information technology are among their category groups. These categories are overlapping. A company is classified as a startup if the funding round in question is any of the following: pre-seed, seed, angel, series a, series b, or venture round. This question resolves on January 30, 2022, 30 days after the forecast period ends. The question -- and the graph below -- therefore includes only transactions entered into Crunchbase within 30 days of the date of its announcement. Historically, 80% of new funding is entered into Crunchbase within 30 days. The data underlying the graph is here.This question is a metric for the following scenarios:Tech Companies Threaten DemocracyFor more on this metric, see the accompanying Foretell metric analysis: \"Are Established Tech Companies Crowding Out Startups?\"\n",
|
||||
"Stars": "★☆☆☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"Title": "Conditional on President Trump NOT being convicted of \"incitement of insurrection,\" what will the Senate's average Bipartisan Index score be from 2021-2022?",
|
||||
"Title": "What will the Senate's average Bipartisan Index score be from 2021-2022?",
|
||||
"URL": "https://www.cset-foretell.com/questions/109-conditional-on-president-trump-not-being-convicted-of-incitement-of-insurrection-what-will-the-senate-s-average-bipartisan-index-score-be-from-2021-2022",
|
||||
"Platform": "CSET-foretell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": false,
|
||||
"Percentage": "none",
|
||||
"# Forecasts": "89",
|
||||
"# Forecasters": "81",
|
||||
"Description": "Related question. This question has a sister question conditional on President Trump's conviction. You can view it here. After the Senate trial, we will close and void (not score) the question whose condition didn't occur and keep the other question open. Context. On January 13, 2021, the U.S. House of Representatives impeached President Trump for \"incitement of insurrection,\" setting up a trial in the Senate. If two-thirds of present Senators vote to convict President Trump, it would take only a simple majority of Senators to bar him from federal office in the future. A point of disagreement is whether a conviction would lead to a more or less divided country. Congressional bipartisanship is one measure, albeit an imperfect one, of how divided the country is.Data and resolution details. This question resolves based on the average Bipartisan Index score of all members of the Senate during the117th Congress, which runs from January 3, 2021 through January 3, 2023. The Bipartisan Index, a joint project of the Lugar Center and Georgetown's McCourt School of Public Policy, quantifies congressional members’ bipartisan behavior on the basis of bill sponsorship and co-sponsorship. The Bipartisan Index scores for this period are expected to be published in March 2023.The graph below shows the Senate's average Bipartisan Index score over time. Notably, the average score increased during the Trump Administration. The Lugar Center has hypothesized a \"Trump Effect\" in which \"the details of legislative work have offered Republican Senators an avenue to express subtle independence and broaden their appeal without reference to the daily media focus on President Trump.\" \n",
|
||||
"# Forecasts": "92",
|
||||
"# Forecasters": "84",
|
||||
"Description": "Related question. This question was previously issued conditional on Trump not being convicted. A sister question was conditioned on Trump being convicted. After Trump was not convicted, we voided the sister question and removed the condition from this question. As of the Senate's vote on conviction, the median forecasted Bipartisan Index Score for the question conditioned on Trump's conviction was 0.1244; the median forecasted Bipartisan Index Score for the question conditioned on Trump not being convicted -- this question -- was 0.0718. Context. On January 13, 2021, the U.S. House of Representatives impeached President Trump for \"incitement of insurrection,\" setting up a trial in the Senate. If two-thirds of present Senators vote to convict President Trump, it would take only a simple majority of Senators to bar him from federal office in the future. A point of disagreement is whether a conviction would lead to a more or less divided country. Congressional bipartisanship is one measure, albeit an imperfect one, of how divided the country is.Data and resolution details. This question resolves based on the average Bipartisan Index score of all members of the Senate during the117th Congress, which runs from January 3, 2021 through January 3, 2023. The Bipartisan Index, a joint project of the Lugar Center and Georgetown's McCourt School of Public Policy, quantifies congressional members’ bipartisan behavior on the basis of bill sponsorship and co-sponsorship. The Bipartisan Index scores for this period are expected to be published in March 2023.The graph below shows the Senate's average Bipartisan Index score over time. Notably, the average score increased during the Trump Administration. The Lugar Center has hypothesized a \"Trump Effect\" in which \"the details of legislative work have offered Republican Senators an avenue to express subtle independence and broaden their appeal without reference to the daily media focus on President Trump.\" \n",
|
||||
"Stars": "★☆☆☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
|
|
@ -82,8 +82,8 @@
|
|||
"Platform": "CSET-foretell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": false,
|
||||
"Percentage": "none",
|
||||
"# Forecasts": "40",
|
||||
"# Forecasters": "38",
|
||||
"# Forecasts": "41",
|
||||
"# Forecasters": "39",
|
||||
"Description": "Related question. This question was previously issued for the period June 15 to August 15, 2020. You can view it here. The crowd's mean forecast was 1.15%, and the correct answer was 1.3%. Those two months were not representative of the second half of 2020 overall, however, which was 0.7%.Data and resolution details. This question is based on data from Nexis Metabase, a corpus of global news articles on a variety of topics. An article is on the topic of AI if it mentions the term \"artificial intelligence\"; and it's on the topic of privacy and security if it mentions the terms \"privacy\" and \"security.\" The data underlying the graph is here.This question is a metric for the following world forecasts: COVID-19 Surveillance Strengthens Authoritarian Governments Three Possible 2025 Worlds that Should Inform Policy Today \n",
|
||||
"Stars": "★☆☆☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
|
|
@ -170,8 +170,8 @@
|
|||
"Platform": "CSET-foretell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": false,
|
||||
"Percentage": "none",
|
||||
"# Forecasts": "75",
|
||||
"# Forecasters": "59",
|
||||
"# Forecasts": "76",
|
||||
"# Forecasters": "60",
|
||||
"Description": "Related questions. This question is part of a cluster that includes U.S. exports of semiconductor manufacturing equipment to China, Chinese imports of semiconductor manufacturing equipment, and Chinese imports of semiconductor chips.Context. The semiconductor manufacturing process has many components manufactured through complicated, highly globalized supply chains. China's ability to produce advanced semiconductor chips is particularly dependent on U.S., Japanese, and Dutch imports of advanced semiconductor manufacturing equipment (SME) -- the tools used by chip factories to make chips. Although China is building up its chip manufacturing capacity using imported SME, it is still reliant on imports for most of the semiconductor chips it consumes. China is especially reliant on the United States, Taiwan, and South Korea for imports of the most advanced semiconductor chips. Therefore, export controls on chips could reduce China's access to them. If China cannot import SME, it will remain dependent on imports for chips. This question focuses on semiconductor chips.Data and resolution details. This question resolves based on United Nations Comtrade data. We classified exports as semiconductor chips if they have Harmonized System (HS) code 8542. The data underlying the graph is here.This question is a metric for a forthcoming scenario on the future of the semiconductor industry.\n",
|
||||
"Stars": "★☆☆☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
|
|
@ -181,7 +181,7 @@
|
|||
"Platform": "CSET-foretell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": false,
|
||||
"Percentage": "none",
|
||||
"# Forecasts": "61",
|
||||
"# Forecasts": "62",
|
||||
"# Forecasters": "45",
|
||||
"Description": "Related questions. This question is part of a cluster that includes U.S. exports of semiconductor chips to China, Chinese imports of semiconductor manufacturing equipment, and Chinese imports of semiconductor chips.Context. The semiconductor manufacturing process has many components manufactured through complicated, highly globalized supply chains. China's ability to produce advanced semiconductor chips is particularly dependent on U.S., Japanese, and Dutch imports of advanced semiconductor manufacturing equipment (SME) -- i.e., the tools used by chip factories to make chips. Although China is building up its chip manufacturing capacity using imported SME, it is still reliant on imports for most of the semiconductor chips it consumes. China is especially reliant on the United States, Taiwan, and South Korea for imports of the most advanced semiconductor chips. Therefore, export controls on chips could reduce China's access to them. If China cannot import SME, it will remain dependent on imports for chips. This question focuses on SME. The United States is considering a number of actions that would reduce the export of SME to China. In September, the Trump Administration restricted exports to China’s Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation (SMIC). Data and resolution details. This question resolves based on United Nations Comtrade data. We classified exports as SME if they have any of the following Harmonized System (HS) codes 8486, 903082, 903141, 854311, 901041. The data underlying the graph is here.This question is a metric for a forthcoming scenario on the future of the semiconductor industry.\n",
|
||||
"Stars": "★☆☆☆☆"
|
||||
|
|
@ -192,8 +192,8 @@
|
|||
"Platform": "CSET-foretell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": false,
|
||||
"Percentage": "none",
|
||||
"# Forecasts": "163",
|
||||
"# Forecasters": "141",
|
||||
"# Forecasts": "164",
|
||||
"# Forecasters": "142",
|
||||
"Description": "Related questions. This question was previously conditioned on Vice President Biden's election. Now that Vice President has been elected, we dropped the condition. We also closed the sister question conditional on President Trump's re-election. You can view it here. We previously asked a non-conditional version of this question regarding the 2021 pew survey, which is still live. You can view it here. Context. The percentage of U.S. residents with unfavorable views of China has increased steeply in response to concerns over the trade war, China’s growing military, and lack of faith in President Xi Jinping. According to a 2018 survey by the Pew Research Center, 47 percent of U.S. residents had an unfavorable view of China. That number has since risen steadily, reaching 66 percent in a March 2020 survey and 73 percent in a June-July 2020 survey.Data and resolution details. Pew conducts its U.S. Global Attitudes Survey at irregular intervals. Since 2014, it's conducted the survey annually between February and June. In 2020, it conducted two surveys, one in March and a second in June-July. This question resolves based on the results of a Pew U.S. Global Attitudes Survey that begins sometime between February 1 and June 30, 2022. If no survey begins during that period, this question will not be scored. You can read more about Pew's sampling methodology here. The data underlying the graph is here.This question is a metric for the following scenario: Three Possible 2025 Worlds that Should Inform Policy Today To suggest a change or clarification to this question, please select Request Clarification from the green gear-shaped dropdown button to the right of the question.\n",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★☆☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
|
|
@ -203,7 +203,7 @@
|
|||
"Platform": "CSET-foretell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": false,
|
||||
"Percentage": "none",
|
||||
"# Forecasts": "93",
|
||||
"# Forecasts": "94",
|
||||
"# Forecasters": "87",
|
||||
"Description": "Context. As U.S.-China tensions increase, policymakers are paying greater attention to areas in which the two countries are entangled. One such area relevant to tech-security policy is AI research collaborations. To date, the U.S.-China decoupling trends apparent in economic and immigration data do not appear to be impacting research collaborations. Whether potential conflicts between academic and security interests will begin to affect research collaborations is unclear.Data and resolution details. This question resolves based on Dimensions data. We classified publications as AI/ML-relevant or not using a predictive model trained on arXiv publication data, where a publication is relevant if it’s categorized on arXiv under any of artificial intelligence, machine learning, computer vision, computation and language, multiagent systems, or robotics. To read more about this method, see “Identifying the Development and Application of Artificial Intelligence in Scientific Text.” A publication is a U.S. publication if any author is affiliated with a U.S.-based organization. A publication is a U.S.-China collaboration if at least one author is affiliated with a U.S.-based organization and at least one author is affiliated with a China-based organization. The data underlying the graph is here.This question is a metric for the following scenarios: Three Possible 2025 Worlds that Should Inform Policy Today An Isolated China in a Globalized World To suggest a change or clarification to this question, please select Request Clarification from the green gear-shaped dropdown button to the right of the question.\n",
|
||||
"Stars": "★☆☆☆☆"
|
||||
|
|
@ -214,8 +214,8 @@
|
|||
"Platform": "CSET-foretell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": true,
|
||||
"Percentage": "70%",
|
||||
"# Forecasts": "145",
|
||||
"# Forecasters": "113",
|
||||
"# Forecasts": "146",
|
||||
"# Forecasters": "114",
|
||||
"Description": "Related questions. This question was previously conditioned on Vice President Biden's election. Now that Vice President has been elected, we dropped the condition. We also closed the sister question conditional on President Trump's re-election. You can view it here. Context. Because the commercial sector, rather than the U.S. government, is pushing the frontier of AI development, the relationship between tech companies and the U.S. government has national security implications. This relationship has been affected by the increasingly likely prospect that the U.S. government will use antitrust laws to break up the companies. After a 16 month investigation, the Democratic members of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust concluded on October 6, 2020 that Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google have engaged in anti-competitive behavior. On October 20, 2020, the Department of Justice filed a long-awaited antitrust lawsuit against Google. Data and resolution details. This question resolves based on a court filing or official announcement by the U.S. government. A lawsuit qualifies as an antitrust lawsuit if it's brought, at least in part, under the Sherman Act of 1890, Clayton Act of 1914, or Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914. ***This question is a metric for the following scenarios:Three Possible 2025 Worlds that Should Inform Policy Today\n",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★☆☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
|
|
@ -247,7 +247,7 @@
|
|||
"Platform": "CSET-foretell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": false,
|
||||
"Percentage": "none",
|
||||
"# Forecasts": "91",
|
||||
"# Forecasts": "92",
|
||||
"# Forecasters": "67",
|
||||
"Description": "Related question. This question was previously issued for 2020. You can view those forecasts here. The actual data for 2020 will be included in the graph below as soon as it's available.Context. The U.S. and China are the world's two largest economies and each other's largest trading partner. Since 2018, they have been engaged in an escalating trade war, and the COVID-19 pandemic has further reduced trade. Data and resolution details. This question resolves based on U.S. Census Bureau data. It includes trade in goods only, not services. Total exports and imports for the eight months ending August 30, 2020 were $332 billion, which puts the 2020 figure on pace for $498 billion. Data for those eight months are not included in the graph below. The data underlying the graph is here.This question is a metric for the following scenarios: Three Possible 2025 Worlds that Should Inform Policy Today An Isolated China in a Globalized World To suggest a change or clarification to this question, please select Request Clarification from the green gear-shaped dropdown button to the right of the question.\n",
|
||||
"Stars": "★☆☆☆☆"
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
File diff suppressed because it is too large
Load Diff
862
data/givewellopenphil-questions-processed.json
Normal file
862
data/givewellopenphil-questions-processed.json
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,862 @@
|
|||
[
|
||||
{
|
||||
"Title": "OFTW moves more than $2.5 million to GiveWell top charities in 2020.",
|
||||
"URL": "https://www.givewell.org/about/impact/one-for-the-world/july-2018-grant#Internal_forecasts",
|
||||
"Platform": "GiveWell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": true,
|
||||
"Percentage": "25%",
|
||||
"Description": "",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"Title": "Conditioned on it still being active, OFTW moves more than $5 million to GiveWell top charities in 2023.",
|
||||
"URL": "https://www.givewell.org/about/impact/one-for-the-world/july-2018-grant#Internal_forecasts",
|
||||
"Platform": "GiveWell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": true,
|
||||
"Percentage": "15%",
|
||||
"Description": "",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"Title": "We renew our support to OFTW after one year.",
|
||||
"URL": "https://www.givewell.org/about/impact/one-for-the-world/july-2018-grant#Internal_forecasts",
|
||||
"Platform": "GiveWell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": true,
|
||||
"Percentage": "75%",
|
||||
"Description": "Resolution: September 2019",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"Title": "We renew our support to OFTW after two years.",
|
||||
"URL": "https://www.givewell.org/about/impact/one-for-the-world/july-2018-grant#Internal_forecasts",
|
||||
"Platform": "GiveWell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": true,
|
||||
"Percentage": "50%",
|
||||
"Description": "Resolution: September 2020",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"Title": "Zusha! is recommended as a top charity by year-end 2017",
|
||||
"URL": "https://www.givewell.org/charities/gui2de/january-2017-grant#Internal_forecasts",
|
||||
"Platform": "GiveWell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": true,
|
||||
"Percentage": "35%",
|
||||
"Description": "",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"Title": "Zusha! appears more cost-effective than AMF",
|
||||
"URL": "https://www.givewell.org/charities/gui2de/january-2017-grant#Internal_forecasts",
|
||||
"Platform": "GiveWell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": true,
|
||||
"Percentage": "10%",
|
||||
"Description": "Resolution: By year-end 2017",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"Title": "Zusha! appears roughly as cost-effective as AMF",
|
||||
"URL": "https://www.givewell.org/charities/gui2de/january-2017-grant#Internal_forecasts",
|
||||
"Platform": "GiveWell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": true,
|
||||
"Percentage": "15%",
|
||||
"Description": "Resolution: By year-end 2017",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"Title": "Zusha! appears less cost-effective than AMF (but is still a top charity recommendation)",
|
||||
"URL": "https://www.givewell.org/charities/gui2de/january-2017-grant#Internal_forecasts",
|
||||
"Platform": "GiveWell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": true,
|
||||
"Percentage": "10%",
|
||||
"Description": "Resolution: By year-end 2017",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"Title": "Good Ventures gives additional funding to Charity Science: Health in one year",
|
||||
"URL": "https://www.givewell.org/charities/charity-science/charity-science-health/november-2016-grant#Internal_forecasts",
|
||||
"Platform": "GiveWell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": true,
|
||||
"Percentage": "80%",
|
||||
"Description": "Resolution: 2017",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"Title": "Charity Science: Health becomes (or creates) a GiveWell top charity by giving season 2019",
|
||||
"URL": "https://www.givewell.org/charities/charity-science/charity-science-health/november-2016-grant#Internal_forecasts",
|
||||
"Platform": "GiveWell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": true,
|
||||
"Percentage": "15%",
|
||||
"Description": "",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"Title": "We will recommend another GiveWell Incubation Grant to Charity Science Health by August 2018",
|
||||
"URL": "https://www.givewell.org/charities/charity-science/charity-science-health/july-2017-grant#Internal_forecasts",
|
||||
"Platform": "GiveWell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": true,
|
||||
"Percentage": "80%",
|
||||
"Description": "",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"Title": "Charity Science Health will be a GiveWell top charity by the end of 2019",
|
||||
"URL": "https://www.givewell.org/charities/charity-science/charity-science-health/july-2017-grant#Internal_forecasts",
|
||||
"Platform": "GiveWell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": true,
|
||||
"Percentage": "15%",
|
||||
"Description": "",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"Title": "Good Ventures gives Results for Development a second grant of approximately the same size in 12 months",
|
||||
"URL": "https://www.givewell.org/charities/results-for-development/may-2016-grant#Internal_forecasts",
|
||||
"Platform": "GiveWell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": true,
|
||||
"Percentage": "70%",
|
||||
"Description": "Resolution: 2017",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"Title": "Results for Development is a top charity by the end of 2019",
|
||||
"URL": "https://www.givewell.org/charities/results-for-development/may-2016-grant#Internal_forecasts",
|
||||
"Platform": "GiveWell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": true,
|
||||
"Percentage": "25%",
|
||||
"Description": "",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
|
||||
{
|
||||
"Title": "New Incentives increases vaccination rates by >17 percentage points and this is detected by the RCT",
|
||||
"URL": "https://www.givewell.org/charities/new-incentives/november-2017-grant#Internal_forecasts",
|
||||
"Platform": "GiveWell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": true,
|
||||
"Percentage": "%",
|
||||
"Description": "",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"Title": "New Incentives increases vaccination rates by >17 percentage points and this is not detected by the RCT",
|
||||
"URL": "https://www.givewell.org/charities/new-incentives/november-2017-grant#Internal_forecasts",
|
||||
"Platform": "GiveWell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": true,
|
||||
"Percentage": "0.1%",
|
||||
"Description": "Actual estimate was \"small probability, close to 0%\"",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"Title": "New Incentives increases vaccination rates by between 6 and 17 percentage points and this is detected by the RCT",
|
||||
"URL": "https://www.givewell.org/charities/new-incentives/november-2017-grant#Internal_forecasts",
|
||||
"Platform": "GiveWell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": true,
|
||||
"Percentage": "55%",
|
||||
"Description": "",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"Title": "New Incentives increases vaccination rates by between 6 and 17 percentage points and this is either not detected by the RCT or is unclear",
|
||||
"URL": "https://www.givewell.org/charities/new-incentives/november-2017-grant#Internal_forecasts",
|
||||
"Platform": "GiveWell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": true,
|
||||
"Percentage": "15%",
|
||||
"Description": "",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"Title": "New Incentives increases vaccination rates by <6 percentage points and we either conclude as much or are uncertain enough that we choose not to pursue New Incentives further",
|
||||
"URL": "https://www.givewell.org/charities/new-incentives/november-2017-grant#Internal_forecasts",
|
||||
"Platform": "GiveWell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": true,
|
||||
"Percentage": "15%",
|
||||
"Description": "",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
|
||||
{
|
||||
"Title": "New Incentives increases vaccination rates by <6 percentage points and we falsely believe it is higher and do pursue New Incentives further",
|
||||
"URL": "https://www.givewell.org/charities/new-incentives/november-2017-grant#Internal_forecasts",
|
||||
"Platform": "GiveWell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": true,
|
||||
"Percentage": "5%",
|
||||
"Description": "",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"Title": "After seeing the RCT results, we are significantly uncertain about whether or not to recommend New Incentives as a top charity",
|
||||
"URL": "https://www.givewell.org/charities/new-incentives/november-2017-grant#Internal_forecasts",
|
||||
"Platform": "GiveWell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": true,
|
||||
"Percentage": "20%",
|
||||
"Description": "",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"Title": "GiveWell estimates that New Incentives is >3x as cost-effective as GiveDirectly",
|
||||
"URL": "https://www.givewell.org/charities/new-incentives/november-2017-grant#Internal_forecasts",
|
||||
"Platform": "GiveWell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": true,
|
||||
"Percentage": "50%",
|
||||
"Description": "",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"Title": "GiveWell estimates that New Incentives is >2x as cost-effective as AMF:",
|
||||
"URL": "https://www.givewell.org/charities/new-incentives/november-2017-grant#Internal_forecasts",
|
||||
"Platform": "GiveWell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": true,
|
||||
"Percentage": "7%",
|
||||
"Description": "Actual estimate was \"<10%\".",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"Title": "New Incentives becomes a top charity by November 2020",
|
||||
"URL": "https://www.givewell.org/charities/new-incentives/november-2017-grant#Internal_forecasts",
|
||||
"Platform": "GiveWell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": true,
|
||||
"Percentage": "50%",
|
||||
"Description": "",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
|
||||
{
|
||||
"Title": "New Incentives is a top charity in 2016",
|
||||
"URL": "https://www.givewell.org/charities/new-incentives/march-2016-grant#Internal_forecasts",
|
||||
"Platform": "GiveWell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": true,
|
||||
"Percentage": "10%",
|
||||
"Description": "",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"Title": "New Incentives is a top charity in 2017",
|
||||
"URL": "https://www.givewell.org/charities/new-incentives/march-2016-grant#Internal_forecasts",
|
||||
"Platform": "GiveWell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": true,
|
||||
"Percentage": "12.5%",
|
||||
"Description": "",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"Title": "New Incentives is a top charity in 2018",
|
||||
"URL": "https://www.givewell.org/charities/new-incentives/march-2016-grant#Internal_forecasts",
|
||||
"Platform": "GiveWell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": true,
|
||||
"Percentage": "15%",
|
||||
"Description": "",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"Title": "Our 2017 cost-effectiveness estimate for New Incentives is at least twice as good as our 2017 estimate for unconditional cash transfers",
|
||||
"URL": "https://www.givewell.org/charities/new-incentives/march-2016-grant#Internal_forecasts",
|
||||
"Platform": "GiveWell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": true,
|
||||
"Percentage": "67%",
|
||||
"Description": "",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"Title": "Our 2017 cost-effectiveness estimate for New Incentives is at least five times as good as our 2017 estimate for unconditional cash transfers",
|
||||
"URL": "https://www.givewell.org/charities/new-incentives/march-2016-grant#Internal_forecasts",
|
||||
"Platform": "GiveWell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": true,
|
||||
"Percentage": "15%",
|
||||
"Description": "",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
|
||||
{
|
||||
"Title": "Our 2017 cost-effectiveness estimate for New Incentives is at least ten times as good as our 2017 estimate for unconditional cash transfers",
|
||||
"URL": "https://www.givewell.org/charities/new-incentives/march-2016-grant#Internal_forecasts",
|
||||
"Platform": "GiveWell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": true,
|
||||
"Percentage": "5%",
|
||||
"Description": "",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"Title": "New Incentives brings in at least $250,000 from a funder other than Good Ventures and the Lampert Family Foundation by the end of 2018",
|
||||
"URL": "https://www.givewell.org/charities/new-incentives/march-2016-grant#Internal_forecasts",
|
||||
"Platform": "GiveWell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": true,
|
||||
"Percentage": "25%",
|
||||
"Description": "",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"Title": "New Incentives still operates in 2019",
|
||||
"URL": "https://www.givewell.org/charities/new-incentives/march-2016-grant#Internal_forecasts",
|
||||
"Platform": "GiveWell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": true,
|
||||
"Percentage": "40%",
|
||||
"Description": "",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"Title": "We provide funding for an RCT of New Incentives' program",
|
||||
"URL": "https://www.givewell.org/charities/new-incentives/april-2017-grant#Internal_forecasts",
|
||||
"Platform": "GiveWell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": true,
|
||||
"Percentage": "70%",
|
||||
"Description": "",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"Title": "New Incentives is a top charity at the end of 2019",
|
||||
"URL": "https://www.givewell.org/charities/new-incentives/april-2017-grant#Internal_forecasts",
|
||||
"Platform": "GiveWell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": true,
|
||||
"Percentage": "50%",
|
||||
"Description": "",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
|
||||
{
|
||||
"Title": "No Lean Season is a top charity at the end of giving season 2017",
|
||||
"URL": "https://www.givewell.org/charities/evidence-action/december-2016-grant#Internal_forecasts",
|
||||
"Platform": "GiveWell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": true,
|
||||
"Percentage": "65%",
|
||||
"Description": "",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"Title": "We find a significant error in Evidence Action's financial documents in 2018",
|
||||
"URL": "https://www.givewell.org/charities/evidence-action/april-2017-grant#Internal_forecasts",
|
||||
"Platform": "GiveWell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": true,
|
||||
"Percentage": "15%",
|
||||
"Description": "",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"Title": "An Evidence Action Beta program other than No Lean Season becomes a top charity by the end of 2021",
|
||||
"URL": "https://www.givewell.org/charities/evidence-action/april-2017-grant#Internal_forecasts",
|
||||
"Platform": "GiveWell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": true,
|
||||
"Percentage": "25%",
|
||||
"Description": "",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"Title": "The Deworm the World Initiative's room for more funding (including execution levels 1 and 2) exceeds $10 million as of November 2018",
|
||||
"URL": "https://www.givewell.org/charities/evidence-action/april-2017-grant#Internal_forecasts",
|
||||
"Platform": "GiveWell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": true,
|
||||
"Percentage": "60%",
|
||||
"Description": "",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"Title": "GiveWell Incubation Grants provides at least $250,000 to an Evidence Action Beta program other than No Lean Season by the end of 2018",
|
||||
"URL": "https://www.givewell.org/charities/evidence-action/april-2017-grant#Internal_forecasts",
|
||||
"Platform": "GiveWell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": true,
|
||||
"Percentage": "60%",
|
||||
"Description": "",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
|
||||
{
|
||||
"Title": "No Lean Season (or a related organization) is a top charity in 2017",
|
||||
"URL": "https://www.givewell.org/evidence-action/march-2016-grant#Internal_forecasts",
|
||||
"Platform": "GiveWell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": true,
|
||||
"Percentage": "15%",
|
||||
"Description": "",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"Title": "No Lean Season (or a related organization) is a top charity in 2018",
|
||||
"URL": "https://www.givewell.org/evidence-action/march-2016-grant#Internal_forecasts",
|
||||
"Platform": "GiveWell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": true,
|
||||
"Percentage": "20%",
|
||||
"Description": "",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"Title": "No Lean Season (or a related organization) is a top charity in 2019",
|
||||
"URL": "https://www.givewell.org/evidence-action/march-2016-grant#Internal_forecasts",
|
||||
"Platform": "GiveWell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": true,
|
||||
"Percentage": "25%",
|
||||
"Description": "",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"Title": "Our 2016 cost-effectiveness estimate for No Lean Season is at least five times as good as cash transfers",
|
||||
"URL": "https://www.givewell.org/evidence-action/march-2016-grant#Internal_forecasts",
|
||||
"Platform": "GiveWell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": true,
|
||||
"Percentage": "50%",
|
||||
"Description": "",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"Title": "Our 2016 cost-effectiveness estimate for No Lean Season is less than twice as good as cash transfers",
|
||||
"URL": "https://www.givewell.org/evidence-action/march-2016-grant#Internal_forecasts",
|
||||
"Platform": "GiveWell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": true,
|
||||
"Percentage": "15%",
|
||||
"Description": "",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"Title": "Our 2016 cost-effectiveness estimate for No Lean Season is at least ten times as good as cash transfers",
|
||||
"URL": "https://www.givewell.org/evidence-action/march-2016-grant#Internal_forecasts",
|
||||
"Platform": "GiveWell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": true,
|
||||
"Percentage": "15%",
|
||||
"Description": "",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"Title": "Innovations for Poverty Action — Mindset Engagement in Cash Transfers. The study detects an effect that is too small relative to the cost of implementing the intervention for it to be worth scaling up.",
|
||||
"URL": "https://www.givewell.org/international/charities/ipa/may-2016-grant#Risks_of_the_grant_and_internal_forecasts",
|
||||
"Platform": "GiveWell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": true,
|
||||
"Percentage": "50%",
|
||||
"Description": "",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"Title": "Innovations for Poverty Action — Mindset Engagement in Cash Transfers. The study yields a result that we're not confident in",
|
||||
"URL": "https://www.givewell.org/international/charities/ipa/may-2016-grant#Risks_of_the_grant_and_internal_forecasts",
|
||||
"Platform": "GiveWell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": true,
|
||||
"Percentage": "25%",
|
||||
"Description": "",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"Title": "Innovations for Poverty Action — Mindset Engagement in Cash Transfers. The study detects an effect that would be worth scaling up, but we are unable to find an implementer interested in doing so",
|
||||
"URL": "https://www.givewell.org/international/charities/ipa/may-2016-grant#Risks_of_the_grant_and_internal_forecasts",
|
||||
"Platform": "GiveWell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": true,
|
||||
"Percentage": "7.5%",
|
||||
"Description": "(for instance, if GiveDirectly were to decide not to incorporate the intervention because it is too time-intensive or diverts attention from other activities, or because GiveDirectly interprets the study's results differently than we do).",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"Title": "Innovations for Poverty Action — Mindset Engagement in Cash Transfers. The intervention has no measurable effect, and we could have predicted this prior to the study by surveying the existing literature more thoroughly",
|
||||
"URL": "https://www.givewell.org/international/charities/ipa/may-2016-grant#Risks_of_the_grant_and_internal_forecasts",
|
||||
"Platform": "GiveWell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": true,
|
||||
"Percentage": "7.5%",
|
||||
"Description": "",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"Title": "GiveWell’s best guess is that Evidence Action’s intervention increases coverage relative to the counterfactual in the first year of Phase 2 of the program by at least 4 percentage points",
|
||||
"URL": "https://www.givewell.org/research/incubation-grants/december-2018-evidence-action-beta-iron-folic-acid-phase-2#Internal_forecasts",
|
||||
"Platform": "GiveWell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": true,
|
||||
"Percentage": "60%",
|
||||
"Description": "",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"Title": "GiveWell’s best guess is that Evidence Action’s intervention increases coverage relative to the counterfactual in the second year of Phase 2 of the program by at least 8 percentage points (cumulatively)",
|
||||
"URL": "https://www.givewell.org/research/incubation-grants/december-2018-evidence-action-beta-iron-folic-acid-phase-2#Internal_forecasts",
|
||||
"Platform": "GiveWell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": true,
|
||||
"Percentage": "50%",
|
||||
"Description": "",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"Title": "Evidence Action requests funding for Phase 3 of this program because it believes Phase 2 to have been successful",
|
||||
"URL": "https://www.givewell.org/research/incubation-grants/december-2018-evidence-action-beta-iron-folic-acid-phase-2#Internal_forecasts",
|
||||
"Platform": "GiveWell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": true,
|
||||
"Percentage": "75%",
|
||||
"Description": "",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"Title": "Estimates of anemia rates from the India National Family Health Survey in an average of 5 randomly chosen non-Evidence Action-supported states do not show anemia declining by more than 2 percentage points per year over the last 5 years (e.g., due to iron fortification or other changes)",
|
||||
"URL": "https://www.givewell.org/research/incubation-grants/december-2018-evidence-action-beta-iron-folic-acid-phase-2#Internal_forecasts",
|
||||
"Platform": "GiveWell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": true,
|
||||
"Percentage": "80%",
|
||||
"Description": "",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"Title": "Evidence Action ultimately spends at least $15 million total on IFA technical assistance that we retrospectively model as 10x as effective (or more) than cash transfers (using our January 2018 CEA as a baseline)",
|
||||
"URL": "https://www.givewell.org/research/incubation-grants/december-2018-evidence-action-beta-iron-folic-acid-phase-2#Internal_forecasts",
|
||||
"Platform": "GiveWell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": true,
|
||||
"Percentage": "35%",
|
||||
"Description": "",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"Title": ,
|
||||
"URL": ,
|
||||
"Platform": "GiveWell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": true,
|
||||
"Percentage": "%",
|
||||
"Description": "",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"Title": ,
|
||||
"URL": ,
|
||||
"Platform": "GiveWell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": true,
|
||||
"Percentage": "%",
|
||||
"Description": "",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"Title": ,
|
||||
"URL": ,
|
||||
"Platform": "GiveWell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": true,
|
||||
"Percentage": "%",
|
||||
"Description": "",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
|
||||
{
|
||||
"Title": ,
|
||||
"URL": ,
|
||||
"Platform": "GiveWell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": true,
|
||||
"Percentage": "%",
|
||||
"Description": "",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"Title": ,
|
||||
"URL": ,
|
||||
"Platform": "GiveWell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": true,
|
||||
"Percentage": "%",
|
||||
"Description": "",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"Title": ,
|
||||
"URL": ,
|
||||
"Platform": "GiveWell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": true,
|
||||
"Percentage": "%",
|
||||
"Description": "",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"Title": ,
|
||||
"URL": ,
|
||||
"Platform": "GiveWell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": true,
|
||||
"Percentage": "%",
|
||||
"Description": "",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"Title": ,
|
||||
"URL": ,
|
||||
"Platform": "GiveWell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": true,
|
||||
"Percentage": "%",
|
||||
"Description": "",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
|
||||
{
|
||||
"Title": ,
|
||||
"URL": ,
|
||||
"Platform": "GiveWell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": true,
|
||||
"Percentage": "%",
|
||||
"Description": "",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"Title": ,
|
||||
"URL": ,
|
||||
"Platform": "GiveWell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": true,
|
||||
"Percentage": "%",
|
||||
"Description": "",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"Title": ,
|
||||
"URL": ,
|
||||
"Platform": "GiveWell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": true,
|
||||
"Percentage": "%",
|
||||
"Description": "",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"Title": ,
|
||||
"URL": ,
|
||||
"Platform": "GiveWell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": true,
|
||||
"Percentage": "%",
|
||||
"Description": "",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"Title": ,
|
||||
"URL": ,
|
||||
"Platform": "GiveWell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": true,
|
||||
"Percentage": "%",
|
||||
"Description": "",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
|
||||
{
|
||||
"Title": ,
|
||||
"URL": ,
|
||||
"Platform": "GiveWell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": true,
|
||||
"Percentage": "%",
|
||||
"Description": "",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"Title": ,
|
||||
"URL": ,
|
||||
"Platform": "GiveWell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": true,
|
||||
"Percentage": "%",
|
||||
"Description": "",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"Title": ,
|
||||
"URL": ,
|
||||
"Platform": "GiveWell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": true,
|
||||
"Percentage": "%",
|
||||
"Description": "",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"Title": ,
|
||||
"URL": ,
|
||||
"Platform": "GiveWell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": true,
|
||||
"Percentage": "%",
|
||||
"Description": "",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"Title": ,
|
||||
"URL": ,
|
||||
"Platform": "GiveWell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": true,
|
||||
"Percentage": "%",
|
||||
"Description": "",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
|
||||
{
|
||||
"Title": ,
|
||||
"URL": ,
|
||||
"Platform": "GiveWell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": true,
|
||||
"Percentage": "%",
|
||||
"Description": "",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"Title": ,
|
||||
"URL": ,
|
||||
"Platform": "GiveWell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": true,
|
||||
"Percentage": "%",
|
||||
"Description": "",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"Title": ,
|
||||
"URL": ,
|
||||
"Platform": "GiveWell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": true,
|
||||
"Percentage": "%",
|
||||
"Description": "",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"Title": ,
|
||||
"URL": ,
|
||||
"Platform": "GiveWell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": true,
|
||||
"Percentage": "%",
|
||||
"Description": "",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"Title": ,
|
||||
"URL": ,
|
||||
"Platform": "GiveWell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": true,
|
||||
"Percentage": "%",
|
||||
"Description": "",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
|
||||
{
|
||||
"Title": ,
|
||||
"URL": ,
|
||||
"Platform": "GiveWell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": true,
|
||||
"Percentage": "%",
|
||||
"Description": "",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"Title": ,
|
||||
"URL": ,
|
||||
"Platform": "GiveWell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": true,
|
||||
"Percentage": "%",
|
||||
"Description": "",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"Title": ,
|
||||
"URL": ,
|
||||
"Platform": "GiveWell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": true,
|
||||
"Percentage": "%",
|
||||
"Description": "",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"Title": ,
|
||||
"URL": ,
|
||||
"Platform": "GiveWell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": true,
|
||||
"Percentage": "%",
|
||||
"Description": "",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"Title": ,
|
||||
"URL": ,
|
||||
"Platform": "GiveWell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": true,
|
||||
"Percentage": "%",
|
||||
"Description": "",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
|
||||
{
|
||||
"Title": ,
|
||||
"URL": ,
|
||||
"Platform": "GiveWell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": true,
|
||||
"Percentage": "%",
|
||||
"Description": "",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"Title": ,
|
||||
"URL": ,
|
||||
"Platform": "GiveWell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": true,
|
||||
"Percentage": "%",
|
||||
"Description": "",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"Title": ,
|
||||
"URL": ,
|
||||
"Platform": "GiveWell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": true,
|
||||
"Percentage": "%",
|
||||
"Description": "",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"Title": ,
|
||||
"URL": ,
|
||||
"Platform": "GiveWell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": true,
|
||||
"Percentage": "%",
|
||||
"Description": "",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"Title": ,
|
||||
"URL": ,
|
||||
"Platform": "GiveWell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": true,
|
||||
"Percentage": "%",
|
||||
"Description": "",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
|
||||
{
|
||||
"Title": ,
|
||||
"URL": ,
|
||||
"Platform": "GiveWell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": true,
|
||||
"Percentage": "%",
|
||||
"Description": "",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"Title": ,
|
||||
"URL": ,
|
||||
"Platform": "GiveWell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": true,
|
||||
"Percentage": "%",
|
||||
"Description": "",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"Title": ,
|
||||
"URL": ,
|
||||
"Platform": "GiveWell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": true,
|
||||
"Percentage": "%",
|
||||
"Description": "",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"Title": ,
|
||||
"URL": ,
|
||||
"Platform": "GiveWell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": true,
|
||||
"Percentage": "%",
|
||||
"Description": "",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"Title": ,
|
||||
"URL": ,
|
||||
"Platform": "GiveWell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": true,
|
||||
"Percentage": "%",
|
||||
"Description": "",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
|
||||
{
|
||||
"Title": ,
|
||||
"URL": ,
|
||||
"Platform": "GiveWell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": true,
|
||||
"Percentage": "%",
|
||||
"Description": "",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"Title": ,
|
||||
"URL": ,
|
||||
"Platform": "GiveWell",
|
||||
"Binary question?": true,
|
||||
"Percentage": "%",
|
||||
"Description": "",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★☆☆"
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
344
data/givewellopenphil-questions-raw.json
Normal file
344
data/givewellopenphil-questions-raw.json
Normal file
File diff suppressed because one or more lines are too long
|
|
@ -341,4 +341,4 @@
|
|||
"Description": "<h2 id=\"Plans_for_follow-up\">Plans for follow-up</h2>\n<div class='toc-back-to-top'><a href='#toc'>Back to Top</a></div><h3 id=\"Goals_and_expectations_for_this_grant\">Goals and expectations for this grant</h3>\n<p>We do not have settled expectations for this grant. We expect that there is a large range of possible outcomes that we would be happy with, and that would be hard to predict in advance.</p>\n<p>We think that it is reasonable to expect that this grant enables Professor Tetlock’s future projects to launch, and perhaps to become more ambitious than they otherwise would have been. We would be pleased if these projects improve our understanding of forecasting and prediction-making in general, or if they provide a platform for Professor Tetlock to bring his existing findings to a more mainstream audience. </p>\n<p>An example of a very positive outcome, from our perspective, would be if this grant contributes to a shift towards a world in which comparing policy claims to the best available forecasts becomes a standard component of evaluating such claims. We consider it very unlikely that this will be a direct outcome of this grant, but we would be excited if the grant laid some groundwork for further work in this direction.</p>\n<p>An example of the kind of impact we would consider a moderate success for this type of effort in the longer term is the effect that Nate Silver’s statistical modeling at <a href=\"http://fivethirtyeight.com\">FiveThirtyEight</a><a class=\"see-footnote\" id=\"footnoteref11_30uihdt\" title=\" Archived copy of link: FiveThirtyEight Website \" href=\"#footnote11_30uihdt\">11</a> has had on the analysis of presidential elections. We would not characterize this impact as revolutionary, but we believe that it has been notable, and that his analyses and models are well-known and respected among people who think seriously about elections. </p>\n<div class='toc-back-to-top'><a href='#toc'>Back to Top</a></div><h3 id=\"Internal_forecasts\">Internal forecasts</h3>\n<p>We’re experimenting with recording explicit numerical forecasts of events related to our decisionmaking (especially grantmaking), in part in connection with our interest in the topic of this grant. The idea behind this is to pull out the implicit predictions that are playing a role in our decisions, and make it possible for us to look back on how well-calibrated and accurate those are. For this grant, we are recording the following forecast:\n<ul>\n<li>The Alpha Pundit Challenge, or something like it, will have converted five or more vague predictions from pundits into numerical predictions, beyond those described in <a class=\"source-definition\" href=\"/files/Grants/Tetlock/Revolutionizing_the_interviewing_of_alpha-pundits_nov_10_2015.pdf\">Tetlock, Alpha Pundit Challenge Proposal</a>, by December 31, 2016: 50%</ul>\n<div class='toc-back-to-top'><a href='#toc'>Back to Top</a></div><h3 id=\"Key_questions_for_follow_up\">Key questions for follow up</h3>\n<p>Questions we anticipate asking Professor Tetlock as part of our follow-up on this grant include:</p>\n<ul>\n<li>How was the funding spent?</p>\n<li>What progress has been made on Adversarial Collaboration Tournaments, the Alpha Pundit Challenge, and any other relevant projects?\n<li>Did interesting or high profile people become involved with either project?\n<li>Was he able to attract significant public attention to either project?\n</ul>\n<div class='toc-back-to-top'><a href='#toc'>Back to Top</a></div><h3 id=\"Follow_up_expectations\">Follow up expectations</h3>\n<p>We plan to speak to Professor Tetlock about these projects roughly every six months. We anticipate producing a written update on this grant after one or two years. If we decide at some point to make a follow up grant, we expect that we would produce a written update at that time. </p>\n<div class='toc-back-to-top'><a href='#toc'>Back to Top</a></div>",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★☆☆"
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
]
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -35,15 +35,6 @@
|
|||
"Description": "Opened 22 January 2021\nThe next inauguration for president of the United States is scheduled for [20 January](https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/amendments-11-27#xx) 2025. A transfer of presidential powers and duties to an acting president under Section 3 or Section 4 of the [25th Amendment](https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/amendments-11-27#xxv) for more than 30 consecutive calendar days would count.\nWhen he took the oath of office, Joe Biden became the oldest newly inaugurated US president in history and also the oldest sitting president ever. Does this imply increased odds he will cease to be president before the end of his term? Good Judgment's Superforecasters assign 7% probability to this outcome. Actuarial tables suggest a US male at age 78 will live another nine years on average. President Biden has no known underlying health conditions. He also has arguably the best health care in the world, and his father died at 87. \nBut, as one Superforecaster pointed out, much can happen in four years. Ceasing on 20 January 2025, when Biden's first term expires, currently has the highest probability (49%). Stepping down or losing a re-election bid could be potential reasons. As to the latter, the base rate, since 1860, for incumbent presidents winning re-election is about 70%. However, Biden would be 82 years old in 2025 and that might affect both his chances and his decision to run. \nSuperforecasters also collectively assign 44% probability that Biden will not cease to be president of the United States before 21 January 2025.\n",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★★☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"Title": "What will be the U.S. real GDP for the second quarter of 2021 relative to the U.S. real GDP for the second quarter of 2019?",
|
||||
"URL": "https://goodjudgment.io/superforecasts/",
|
||||
"Platform": "Good Judgment",
|
||||
"Binary question?": false,
|
||||
"Percentage": "none",
|
||||
"Description": "Opened 1 May 2020\nSpeculations are wide and numerous about how much the Covid [outbreak](https://www.morningstar.com/articles/976107/coronavirus-update-long-term-economic-impact-forecast-to-be-less-than-2008-recession) will [impact](https://www.cbo.gov/publication/56335) U.S. real [GDP](https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-hit-to-us-economy-gdp-jobs-only-just-starting-2020-4) in the long term. The outcome will be determined using data for both Q2 2019 and Q2 2021 from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) as reported by the Federal Reserve Economic Data ([FRED](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDPC1)) database upon the release of BEA's advance estimate for Q2 2021. Historical data are also available on [BEA](https://apps.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?reqid=19&step=2#reqid=19&step=2&isuri=1&1921=survey)'s website (select \"view data in XLS or other formats, and see Table 1.1.6 in the Section 1 file). The real GDP reported for Q2 2019 as of launch was $19,021.860 billion (subject to future revisions).\n27 January 2021 - Vaccine rollout, however slow, and the expected additional stimulus bill are good news for the economic outlook in the United States. The second quarter of 2021 may not yet be the time when their full benefits are felt, but Good Judgment's Superforecasters predict the country should be well on the way to a modest economic growth by then. Some segments of the society, especially white-collar workers, did not experience the economic fallout from the pandemic as acutely as their blue-collar counterparts did, and these are the segments that tend to have most impact on the economy through consumer spending. Companies are expected to increase economic activity in anticipation of recovery. Superforecasters are assigning the highest probability (68%) to the second-quarter GDP for 2021 being lower by 0% to 5% relative to the second quarter of 2019, and 29% probability to it being higher. There is now zero probability on aggregate that Q2 2021 GDP will be lower by more than 10% relative to the corresponding figure for 2019.\n",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★★☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"Title": "How many cases of COVID-19 will be reported by the Africa CDC as of 1 April 2021?",
|
||||
"URL": "https://goodjudgment.io/superforecasts/",
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
File diff suppressed because it is too large
Load Diff
|
|
@ -22,7 +22,7 @@
|
|||
"URL": "https://predict.hypermind.com/dash/dash/dash.html?list=USA",
|
||||
"Platform": "Hypermind",
|
||||
"Binary question?": true,
|
||||
"Percentage": "34%",
|
||||
"Percentage": "24%",
|
||||
"Description": "While Barack Obama was president, the United States won: - 121 medals in 2016 - 104 medals in 2012 - 112 medals in 2008 24/01/2021: If the Tokyo Olympics are canceled in 2021, this question will be resolved according to the medals obtained at the next Olympics.\n",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
|
|
@ -31,7 +31,7 @@
|
|||
"URL": "https://predict.hypermind.com/dash/dash/dash.html?list=USA",
|
||||
"Platform": "Hypermind",
|
||||
"Binary question?": true,
|
||||
"Percentage": "4%",
|
||||
"Percentage": "3%",
|
||||
"Description": "The Insurrection Act is a United States federal law that empowers the President of the United States to deploy U.S. military and federalized National Guard troops within the United States in particular circumstances, such as to suppress civil disorder, insurrection and rebellion. See: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act_of_1807](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act_of_1807) \n",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
|
|
@ -112,7 +112,7 @@
|
|||
"URL": "https://predict.hypermind.com/dash/dash/dash.html?list=AFR",
|
||||
"Platform": "Hypermind",
|
||||
"Binary question?": true,
|
||||
"Percentage": "8%",
|
||||
"Percentage": "3%",
|
||||
"Description": "Shares of the correct outcome will be worth 100ℍ while the other will be worthless (0ℍ). Touadéra, president of the Central African Republic, will be deemed to have lost power in the following cases: 1) death; 2) imprisonment, house arrest, or capture by hostile forces for at least 48 hours; 3) resignation; 4) been stripped of his office and/or replaced by formal government, judicial, or electorate action; 5) fled the country, gone into exile, or disappeared entirely from public view such that it is unclear whether he is alive or residing within his country; 6) been deemed in a prolonged state of mental incapacitation. In the first four situations, the question will close immediately; for options 5 and 6, we will observe a two-week waiting period beginning when the circumstance is first reported in the media, then judge the date of power-loss retroactively. However, if 31 December 2021, the question's expiry date, falls within the 2-week waiting period for options 5 or 6, we will consider that Touadéra has lost power before the end of the year (local time).\n",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
|
|
@ -121,7 +121,7 @@
|
|||
"URL": "https://predict.hypermind.com/dash/dash/dash.html?list=AFR",
|
||||
"Platform": "Hypermind",
|
||||
"Binary question?": true,
|
||||
"Percentage": "23%",
|
||||
"Percentage": "13%",
|
||||
"Description": "Shares of the correct outcome will be worth 100ℍ while the other will be worthless (0ℍ). Tebboune, president of Algeria, will be deemed to have lost power in the following cases: 1) death; 2) imprisonment, house arrest, or capture by hostile forces for at least 48 hours; 3) resignation; 4) been stripped of his office and/or replaced by formal government, judicial, or electorate action; 5) fled the country, gone into exile, or disappeared entirely from public view such that it is unclear whether he is alive or residing within his country; 6) been deemed in a prolonged state of mental incapacitation. In the first four situations, the question will close immediately; for options 5 and 6, we will observe a two-week waiting period beginning when the circumstance is first reported in the media, then judge the date of power-loss retroactively. However, if 31 December 2021, the question's expiry date, falls within the 2-week waiting period for options 5 or 6, we will consider that Tebboune has lost power before the end of the year (local time).\n",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
|
|
@ -211,7 +211,7 @@
|
|||
"URL": "https://predict.hypermind.com/dash/dash/dash.html?list=ECO",
|
||||
"Platform": "Hypermind",
|
||||
"Binary question?": true,
|
||||
"Percentage": "39%",
|
||||
"Percentage": "35%",
|
||||
"Description": "Shares of the correct outcome will be worth 100ℍ, while the other will be worthless (0ℍ).\nFollow godlier prices here: [https://www.monex.com/gold-prices/](https://www.monex.com/gold-prices/)\n",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
|
|
@ -238,7 +238,7 @@
|
|||
"URL": "https://predict.hypermind.com/dash/dash/dash.html?list=ECO",
|
||||
"Platform": "Hypermind",
|
||||
"Binary question?": true,
|
||||
"Percentage": "78%",
|
||||
"Percentage": "80%",
|
||||
"Description": "This question starts on November 16, 2020, but there is no time limit on its resolution. It will be resolved as soon as the value of the CAC 40 index reaches or crosses either of the specified thresholds, even temporarily.\n",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
|
|
@ -256,7 +256,7 @@
|
|||
"URL": "https://predict.hypermind.com/dash/dash/dash.html?list=ECO",
|
||||
"Platform": "Hypermind",
|
||||
"Binary question?": true,
|
||||
"Percentage": "72%",
|
||||
"Percentage": "69%",
|
||||
"Description": "The Olympics Games are currently scheduled to start in Japan in July 2021... This question will resolve as \"Yes\" if the Olympic Games take place anywhere at anytime in 2021.\n",
|
||||
"Stars": "★★★☆☆"
|
||||
},
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user