What is the probability of the US Steel/Nippon Steel merger being officially announced before January 21, 2025?
Welcome to the Multi-AI Oracle. Today, 45%, down greatly from 71% yesterday.
Obtaining outside newsfeed. News from various sources: Based on the recent news articles, here’s a summary of the Nippon Steel – US Steel merger situation:
Most Recent Developments (Last 24-48 hours): Nippon Steel has made significant new concessions to try to win approval for its $14.9 billion acquisition of US Steel, including:
– Offering the US government veto power over any potential cuts to US Steel’s production capacity
– Adding a 10-year guarantee not to reduce US Steel production
– Stock in US Steel jumped significantly on news of these concessions
Current Status:
– The decision now rests with President Biden after the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) was unable to reach a consensus
– Nippon Steel is claiming support for the deal in US steelmaking regions and argues there is no national security threat
– The company has pledged to invest billions in US Steel’s facilities in critical states.
Key Context: The proposed $14.9 billion acquisition has become politically contentious, with concerns about foreign ownership of a historically significant US industrial company. While some argue the deal poses no genuine national security threat and would strengthen US steel production through Japanese investment, others worry about potential job losses and reduced domestic production capacity. Biden’s decision on whether to approve the deal will likely be influenced by both economic and political considerations in an election year.
Summarizing outside newsfeed: “Recent developments surrounding the proposed $14.9 billion acquisition of US Steel by Nippon Steel have seen the latter making substantial concessions to gain approval, including offering the US government veto power over potential production cuts and a 10-year guarantee to maintain current production levels. This has caused US Steel’s stock value to rise significantly. Despite these efforts, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) has not reached a consensus, leaving the final decision to President Biden. Nippon Steel asserts there are no national security risks and has pledged significant investment in US Steel’s US facilities, claiming regional support. However, the acquisition has sparked a politically charged debate, with some concerned about potential job losses and the implications of foreign ownership of a key US industry, while others highlight the benefits of new investment. President Biden’s decision is anticipated to weigh economic benefits against political implications, particularly given the context of an election year.”
Fact-checking news summary: Here is a list of specific facts extracted from the summary, along with checks for their correctness and relevance to the outcome:
1. **Fact:** The proposed acquisition of US Steel by Nippon Steel is valued at $14.9 billion.
– **Correctness:** True. The value stated in the summary is consistent with a plausible acquisition figure.
– **Relevance:** True. The valuation is relevant as it affects the scale and significance of the merger.
2. **Fact:** Nippon Steel has offered the US government veto power over potential production cuts.
– **Correctness:** True, based on internal consistency. It is plausible that such a concession would be made to gain approval.
– **Relevance:** True. Such a concession is relevant to the merger approval process, as it addresses regulatory and policy concerns.
3. **Fact:** Nippon Steel has provided a 10-year guarantee to maintain current production levels.
– **Correctness:** True, based on internal consistency. Offering guarantees is a common strategy in merger negotiations.
– **Relevance:** True. This guarantee is directly relevant as it pertains to job security and operational stability, influencing approval.
4. **Fact:** US Steel’s stock value has risen significantly due to these developments.
– **Correctness:** True, assuming the developments are viewed positively by investors.
– **Relevance:** False, directly. While a stock increase indicates market optimism, it does not directly affect merger approval.
5. **Fact:** CFIUS has not reached a consensus on the merger.
– **Correctness:** True, based on internal consistency. It is plausible that CFIUS has not yet made a recommendation.
– **Relevance:** True. CFIUS’s consensus greatly impacts the likelihood of the merger being approved.
6. **Fact:** The final decision is with President Biden.
– **Correctness:** True, based on procedural accuracy. The President often has the final say in significant foreign mergers involving national security.
– **Relevance:** True. The ultimate decision-maker’s stance directly affects the merger’s outcome.
7. **Fact:** Nippon Steel claims there are no national security risks.
– **Correctness:** True, as it is stated in the summary. It is typical for the company to downplay security risks to facilitate approval.
– **Relevance:** True. National security assessments are crucial in CFIUS evaluations and the merger approval process.
8. **Fact:** Nippon Steel has pledged significant investment in US Steel’s US facilities.
– **Correctness:** True, based on internal consistency. Pledging investment is a common strategy to gain favor in mergers.
– **Relevance:** True. Investment commitments impact job creation and economic benefits, weighing into the approval decision.
9. **Fact:** There is regional support for the acquisition.
– **Correctness:** True, if supported by evidence, but the summary does not provide verifiable references.
– **Relevance:** True. Regional support might influence the political climate and decision-making process.
10. **Fact:** The acquisition debate is politically charged, with concerns about job losses and foreign ownership.
– **Correctness:** True, based on typical concerns in such mergers.
– **Relevance:** True. Political and social dynamics influence approval prospects and public perception.
11. **Fact:** President Biden’s decision will weigh economic benefits against political implications.
– **Correctness:** True, based on internal logic and typical decision-making criteria.
– **Relevance:** True. The decision criteria directly relate to the likelihood and timing of the merger announcement.
Overall, these facts are consistent and relevant to evaluating the probability of the official announcement by the specified date, providing insights into the merger’s approval dynamics.
Fact-checked summary: The proposed acquisition of US Steel by Nippon Steel is valued at $14.9 billion, indicating its scale and significance. Nippon Steel has offered the US government veto power over potential production cuts and provided a 10-year guarantee to maintain current production levels, addressing regulatory and policy concerns and impacting job security and operational stability. CFIUS has not reached a consensus on the merger, highlighting a key step in the approval process. The final decision rests with President Biden, who will consider economic benefits against political implications, directly affecting the merger’s outcome. Additionally, Nippon Steel claims there are no national security risks, and the company has pledged significant investment in US Steel’s US facilities, influencing job creation and economic benefits, crucial for approval. The debate is politically charged, with concerns about job losses and foreign ownership, impacting the political climate and decision-making process. These factors together provide insights into the likelihood of the merger being officially announced before January 21, 2025.
OpenAI gives a base rate of 0.6.
The following were considered in order to produce this base rate: The proposed acquisition of US Steel by Nippon Steel is valued at $14.9 billion, a significant transaction. Key considerations include regulatory approvals, notably from the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), which has not yet reached a consensus. Given the size and strategic nature of this acquisition, past mergers of similar scale have faced significant regulatory scrutiny but have been approved if sufficient guarantees are provided. Nippon Steel has offered veto power over production decisions and a 10-year guarantee on maintaining production levels, which are strong assurances that address regulatory concerns. Furthermore, Nippon Steel has pledged investment in US facilities, emphasizing job creation and economic benefits, which may positively influence decision-making. Historically, deals of this magnitude with similar commitments have a moderate to high likelihood of moving forward.
Some potential divergent considerations that might affect the base rate: Several factors could lead to a different outcome than the base rate suggests. Despite assurances from Nippon Steel, political concerns about foreign ownership and job security may influence decision-making, especially if there is strong opposition from political figures or the public. Additionally, if CFIUS or the President identifies any unresolved national security risks or economic concerns, this could delay or prevent approval. The current political climate and economic policies might add additional hurdles to the approval process, altering the expected timeline or outcome beyond January 21, 2025.
The following chain of events are necessary for the question to resolve positively:
– CFIUS reaches a consensus on the merger, likely.
– President Biden approves the merger, uncertain.
Querying Claude (AI predicts: 0.35 – confidence: 6)
Querying Mistral (AI predicts: 0.55 – confidence: 4)
Querying OpenAI (AI predicts: 0.45 – confidence: 5)
Question Type: Binary
Median from LLMs: 0.45
Base rate: 0.6 (from OpenAI)
SD: 0.08
Confidence: 5
Conf Mode: Normal
Mellers: 0.43
Reverse Mellers: 0.47
Theory of Mind: 0.6 (What did the LLMs think other LLMs predicted?)
Beta Distribution: 0.97
Close Type: B (B = cautious # closer to 50%; A/C = closer to extremes)
# LLM responses: 3
Model value: 0.45
We queried Claude, Mistral, OpenAI. A summary of what the responding AIs considered is as follows:
The proposed $14.9 billion merger between US Steel and Nippon Steel faces significant regulatory hurdles primarily from the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) and ultimately requires approval from President Biden. Nippon Steel has made several commitments, including veto power over production decisions, a 10-year production level guarantee, and pledges for significant investments, to address these regulatory concerns. However, the politically sensitive nature of the merger, with fears of foreign ownership and job security, adds complexity to the decision-making process. Despite these assurances, the unresolved status of CFIUS approval and a short timeframe before January 21, 2025, make timely completion uncertain. Potential scenarios that could expedite approval include behind-the-scenes progress by CFIUS, pre-alignment with the Biden administration, and urgent political pressure to protect US Steel jobs. Conversely, unexpected political opposition or unresolved security risks could further delay or prevent approval.
Given the agreement of the Dock Workers to salary increases, both union and the port will return to the bargaining table on Jan. 15, 2025 to discuss automation and other issues, what’s the probability of a strike in Q1 2025.
Welcome to the Multi-AI Oracle. Today, 45%, down from 57% yesterday.
Obtaining our outside newsfeed from various sources relevant to the keywords “dock workers strike” from reliable sources:
Based on the news article URLs provided, here’s a summary of the situation: A potential strike by U.S. East and Gulf Coast port workers is looming, with a critical deadline of January 15, 2023. [Editor’s note: although this date is erronoeus , should be 2025, the Multi-AI Oracle caught and corrected this error in its fact-checking system below.] The International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) and the United States Maritime Alliance (USMX), representing port employers, are scheduled to restart negotiations next week in an attempt to avoid a work stoppage that could significantly impact maritime commerce.
The main issues revolve around ongoing labor disputes and contract negotiations. The threat of a strike comes as ports continue to play a crucial role in the nation’s supply chain, with dockworkers handling massive container shipments that are essential to U.S. commerce. This potential action follows historical patterns of labor disputes in the shipping industry, which has seen significant changes since the containerization revolution began about 70 years ago.
This latest development is particularly noteworthy as it affects ports along both the East and Gulf coasts, potentially having a broader economic impact than previous regional disputes. The negotiations next week will be crucial in determining whether a strike can be averted before the January 15 deadline, with both sides under pressure to reach an agreement to prevent disruption to the nation’s supply chain.
*Note: This summary emphasizes the most recent reporting, which indicates that talks are set to resume next week ahead of the mid-January deadline.*
Summarizing outside newsfeed: “A potential strike by U.S. East and Gulf Coast port workers is on the horizon, with a crucial deadline set for January 15, 2023. The International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) and the United States Maritime Alliance (USMX), representing port employers, plan to resume negotiations next week to avert a work stoppage that could disrupt maritime commerce. The core issues involve labor disputes and contract negotiations that reflect a historical pattern of disputes within the shipping industry. The impending strike could have significant economic implications, affecting vital ports and the national supply chain. Both parties face pressure to reach an agreement during next week’s talks to prevent a disruption. The summary draws from recent reports but notes the need for cautious interpretation as the information may involve rumors and propaganda.”
Fact-checking news summary: Here is a list of specific facts from the summary with an analysis of their correctness and relevance:
1. **Fact:** A potential strike by U.S. East and Gulf Coast port workers is on the horizon.
– **Correct (True/False)?** True. The statement is consistent with the context provided about labor disputes in the shipping industry.
– **Relevant to outcome (True/False)?** True. A potential strike is directly relevant to assessing the probability of a strike in Q1 2025.
2. **Fact:** The crucial deadline for negotiations is set for January 15, 2023.
– **Correct (True/False)?** False. The original question refers to a negotiation date of January 15, 2025, not 2023.
– **Relevant to outcome (True/False)?** True. While the year is incorrect, the context of a pivotal negotiation date remains relevant to the outcome.
3. **Fact:** The International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) and the United States Maritime Alliance (USMX) plan to resume negotiations next week.
– **Correct (True/False)?** False. The summary mentions a negotiation date far in the future (January 15, 2025), not “next week.”
– **Relevant to outcome (True/False)?** True. The participants and their negotiation activities are relevant to the probability of a strike.
4. **Fact:** The negotiations aim to avert a work stoppage that could disrupt maritime commerce.
– **Correct (True/False)?** True. A primary goal of labor negotiations is typically to prevent disruptions such as strikes.
– **Relevant to outcome (True/False)?** True. Preventing a work stoppage is directly related to the outcome of avoiding a strike.
5. **Fact:** The core issues involve labor disputes and contract negotiations.
– **Correct (True/False)?** True. Labor disputes and contract negotiations are common issues in this context.
– **Relevant to outcome (True/False)?** True. These issues are central to the probability of a strike occurring.
6. **Fact:** The impending strike could have significant economic implications, affecting vital ports and the national supply chain.
– **Correct (True/False)?** True. Strikes typically impact ports and supply chains significantly.
– **Relevant to outcome (True/False)?** True. The economic implications underscore the importance of the negotiation outcomes.
7. **Fact:** Both parties face pressure to reach an agreement during next week’s talks to prevent disruption.
– **Correct (True/False)?** False. The mention of “next week’s talks” is inconsistent with the January 15, 2025, date.
– **Relevant to outcome (True/False)?** True. The pressure to reach an agreement affects the likelihood of a strike.
8. **Fact:** The summary draws from recent reports, noting that information may involve rumors and propaganda.
– **Correct (True/False)?** True. Summaries often draw on diverse sources, and caution regarding rumors and propaganda is reasonable.
– **Relevant to outcome (True/False)?** False. The statement about rumors and propaganda does not directly influence the probability of a strike, though it may contextualize the reliability of the information.
Fact-checked summary: A potential strike by U.S. East and Gulf Coast port workers is on the horizon, which is directly relevant to assessing the probability of a strike in Q1 2025. The negotiations aim to avert a work stoppage that could disrupt maritime commerce, highlighting the central role of labor disputes and contract negotiations in these discussions. An impending strike could have significant economic implications, affecting vital ports and the national supply chain. These elements underscore the importance of the negotiation outcomes in preventing a work stoppage.
OpenAI gives a base rate of 0.3.
The following were considered in order to produce this base rate: The base rate considers the historical precedent of labor disputes at U.S. ports. Most negotiations have historically concluded without strikes as parties recognize the significant economic impact. However, tensions do exist, and recent history shows a moderate chance of strikes being called, even if they are often resolved in last-minute negotiations. The potential economic impact and the role of critical ports can drive negotiations toward settlements, maintaining a moderate probability of avoiding a strike.
Some potential divergent considerations that might affect the base rate:
Divergent factors include the specific grievances and pressures involved in the current negotiation, which could heighten tensions. Additionally, any worsening economic conditions or political factors might influence the government’s willingness to intervene or the union’s willingness to escalate to a strike. Previous disruptions in the supply chain have heightened awareness and pressure to avoid strikes, which might make resolution more likely in this context.
The following chain of events are necessary for the question to resolve positively:
– Labor contract negotiations between port workers and their employers collapse without reaching an agreement, which is unlikely due to the historical tendency to settle negotiations to avoid economic disruptions.
– The union calls for a strike, which is moderately likely if negotiations stall or fail to meet key demands.
– Union members vote in favor of a strike, which is likely if leadership recommends it and the contract is unfavorable.
– No government intervention or legal action prevents the strike from going forward, which is moderately likely as governments often try to intervene in port disruptions.
Querying Claude (AI predicts: 0.35 – confidence: 6)
Querying Mistral (AI predicts: 0.25 – confidence: 6)
Querying OpenAI (AI predicts: 0.25 – confidence: 6)
Question Type: Binary
Median from LLMs: 0.25
Base rate: 0.3 (from OpenAI)
SD: 0.05
Confidence: 6
Conf Mode: Normal
Mellers: 0.17
Reverse Mellers: 0.33
Theory of Mind: 0.4 (What did the LLMs think other LLMs predicted?)
Beta Distribution: 0.86
Close Type: A (B = cautious # closer to 50%; A/C = closer to extremes)
# LLM responses: 3
Model value: 0.25
We queried Claude, Mistral, OpenAI. A summary of what the responding AIs considered is as follows:
The consensus among the AI predictions is that the likelihood of a port strike in Q1 2025 is moderate but leans towards less likely due to historical trends where labor disputes usually resolve without strikes because of the economic implications. The recent salary agreement indicates a positive negotiation climate, suggesting some willingness to compromise. However, automation discussions are expected to be a significant point of contention, potentially complicating negotiations. Government intervention often mitigates risk, given the economic impact of a strike. While the union’s need for member approval and adherence to legal procedures delays any immediate strike action, tensions could escalate if talks stall, particularly around non-negotiable topics like automation. Therefore, while a strike is less likely, it remains a possibility should negotiations break down or if union members strongly push for action.
How many seats will the Conservative Party win in Canada’s next federal parliamentary election?
Welcome to the Multi-AI Oracle. Today,
* less than 172: 35%
* between 172 and 205: 40%
* between 206 and 240: 20%
* more than 240: 5%
Obtaining outside newsfeed. News from various sources: I’ll summarize the key points from these recent news articles about Canadian politics:
Most Recently (3-5 days ago):
– There’s a growing trend of city voters in Canada leaning more towards the right politically, according to recent analysis from The Globe and Mail. This shift is partly attributed to changing demographics in urban centers and increased immigration patterns.
– Former MLA Dan Ashton (Penticton-Peachland) has announced his intention to run for MP in 2025, campaigning on a platform of fiscal responsibility and financial accountability.
Past Two Weeks:
– The Jacobin article discusses how Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has lost support among working-class voters, reflecting a broader pattern of political dealignment similar to what’s happening in other countries.
– Conservative MP Michelle Ferreri (Peterborough-Kawartha) has expressed strong opposition to Trudeau’s leadership, advocating for Conservative government as Canada’s “only alternative.”
– In British Columbia, significant political developments included the passing of former Premier John Horgan (known as “Premier Dad”) and ongoing changes within the provincial conservative movement.
The overall narrative suggests a rightward shift in Canadian politics, particularly in urban areas that have traditionally leaned liberal, with growing criticism of Trudeau’s leadership and increasing support for conservative alternatives. This trend appears to be driven by various factors including economic concerns, changing demographics, and dissatisfaction with current Liberal policies.
Summarizing outside newsfeed: “Recent reports on Canadian politics suggest a potential rightward shift among urban voters, traditionally aligned with liberal values, possibly due to evolving demographics and immigration patterns. Former MLA Dan Ashton plans to run for federal office, emphasizing fiscal responsibility, while Conservative MP Michelle Ferreri criticizes Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and promotes conservative leadership as the preferable alternative. Additionally, there are signs of political realignment in Canada, akin to trends in other countries, with Trudeau reportedly losing support among working-class voters. In British Columbia, significant political activity includes mourning the passing of former Premier John Horgan and evolving conservative dynamics. Caution should be taken when interpreting these developments, as the newsfeed may contain unsubstantiated information and political biases.”
Fact-checking news summary: Based on the summary provided, here is a list of specific facts along with checks for correctness and relevance:
1. **Recent reports suggest a potential rightward shift among urban voters in Canada.**
– **Correctness:** This is a claim based on reports; it’s challenging to categorically verify without specific data or evidence from these reports. However, polling trends can sometimes suggest shifts. It is correct that demographics and immigration can influence political alignment, but this is speculative without hard data.
– **Relevance:** True. A rightward shift among urban voters could significantly impact the outcome of the election and the number of seats the Conservative Party could win.
2. **Former MLA Dan Ashton plans to run for federal office, emphasizing fiscal responsibility.**
– **Correctness:** Without direct information confirming Dan Ashton’s intentions, it’s speculative. Former politicians often do consider returning to politics, but specific plans would need verification.
– **Relevance:** True. If he runs and wins a seat, this could contribute to the total seats won by the Conservative Party.
3. **Conservative MP Michelle Ferreri criticizes Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and promotes conservative leadership as the preferable alternative.**
– **Correctness:** The statement is plausible and matches common political strategies, but whether Ferreri has made this specific criticism needs to be verified through direct quotes or a statement from her.
– **Relevance:** True. The posture of Conservative MPs against Trudeau can affect voter sentiment and impact the election results.
4. **There are signs of political realignment in Canada, akin to trends in other countries, with Trudeau reportedly losing support among working-class voters.**
– **Correctness:** Trends of political realignment are reported in many countries, but specific evidence regarding Trudeau’s support among working-class voters would require polling data. It remains speculative without concrete data.
– **Relevance:** True. Changing support bases can heavily influence election outcomes and the number of seats won by various parties, including the Conservative Party.
5. **In British Columbia, significant political activity includes mourning the passing of former Premier John Horgan and evolving conservative dynamics.**
– **Correctness:** This fact about mourning John Horgan’s passing is incorrect, as John Horgan was alive as of the latest data available. However, the conservative dynamics in British Columbia might be evolving; this requires verification from political trends or reports.
– **Relevance:** True. Political dynamics in British Columbia can influence federal election results and the number of seats for the Conservative Party.
6. **Caution should be taken when interpreting these developments, as the newsfeed may contain unsubstantiated information and political biases.**
– **Correctness:** True. This is a cautionary note and reflects a standard understanding of media consumption.
– **Relevance:** True. Recognizing potential biases is vital for accurately predicting election outcomes.
Overall, while many of these facts are relevant, some require further verification for correctness, and interpretations must consider potential biases within the reports themselves.
Fact-checked summary: The Conservative Party’s performance in Canada’s next federal parliamentary election could be influenced by several factors. There is a potential rightward shift among urban voters, which may impact election outcomes and increase the number of seats the party wins. The posture of Conservative MPs, such as criticism of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, can also affect voter sentiment and election results. Additionally, political realignment trends suggest shifts in voter support, notably among working-class voters, which could further influence the number of seats won by the Conservatives. While analyzing these developments, it is crucial to consider potential media biases and the need for substantiated information when predicting election outcomes.
Querying Claude (AI predicts: [“less than 172”: 0.35, “between 172 and 205”: 0.4, “between 206 and 240”: 0.2, “more than 240”: 0.05] – confidence: 4)
Querying Mistral (AI predicts: [“less than 172”: 0.35, “between 172 and 205”: 0.45, “between 206 and 240”: 0.15, “more than 240”: 0.05] – confidence: 6)
Querying OpenAI (AI predicts: [“less than 172”: 0.15, “between 172 and 205”: 0.25, “between 206 and 240”: 0.35, “more than 240”: 0.25] – confidence: 6)
Question Type: Multiple Choice
Confidence: 6
# LLM responses: 3
Model value:
* less than 172: 0.35
* between 172 and 205: 0.4
* between 206 and 240: 0.2
* more than 240: 0.05
We queried Claude, Mistral, OpenAI. A summary of what the responding AIs considered is as follows:
The predictions surrounding the potential success of the Conservative Party in upcoming elections hinge on multiple factors, including historical performance, current polling trends, and political shifts. There is evidence of a possible rightward shift among urban and working-class voters, which could increase the Conservative seat count. Criticisms of Prime Minister Trudeau by conservatives may also resonate with voters unhappy with the current government. However, achieving a historic number of seats or a majority remains difficult in Canada’s multi-party system. Counterarguments point out the potential unreliability of polling data, the historical resilience of the Liberal Party, and influences such as media biases, regional dynamics, and unforeseen political events that could affect voter sentiment and the eventual election outcome. Thus, while there are signs favorable to the Conservatives, the political environment remains fluid and unpredictable.
Runtime for all questions on this page: 202 seconds.
Past Multi-AI Oracle Forecasts
Guide to our Multi-AI Oracle’s Reports
Median: We collect the output values from the LLMs in an array. We then take the median value. This is between 0 and 1 (i.e. 0.15 = 15%).
Base rate: Currently we take OpenAI’s value as the base rate. We are working on a better value using a different prompt that takes into account process. The base rate helps to determine if the median makes sense.
SD: The standard deviation between the median and the base rate.
Confidence: We query each of the LLMs on how confident they are of their predictions (between 0 and 10) and take a median. Because the LLMs tend to be overconfident, we take anything lower than 6 as being low confidence. This factors into the overall model.
Conf Mode: Based on the confidence value. >=9 is high confidence. Below 6 is low confidence (this is also triggered by an exceptionally high SD).
Mellers: This refers to Barbara Mellers, specifically a paper she wrote that includes a formula for moving values towards an extreme (i.e. 0 or 1).
Reverse Mellers: This uses the formula from above, but with a sub-1 coefficient to move the values closer to 50%.
Theory of Mind: We ask the LLMs what they think other LLMs would predict. We hope that this makes them consider the questions more deeply.
Beta Distribution: Currently unused, but possibly of interest. This is based on the median, the base rate and the SD.
Close Type: We noticed that the appropriate base case for some questions is closer to the extremes, while others are closer to 50%. When we have a low confidence value, this helps us to determine whether to extremize or de-extremize the value. ‘A’ implies closer to zero. ‘B’ implies closer to 50%. ‘C’ implies closer to 100%.
# LLM Responses: The count of LLMs that responded. We query 5 currently, but they have a relatively high API failure rate.
Model value: For normal confidence mode, this is the median. For high confidence, this is the Mellers value. For low confidence, this is either the Mellers or Reverse Mellers (depending on the Close Type).
