Contribution to the handbook
Supporting · Assessed 2026-10-28
The reported comparison of preference estimates across random samples is useful background for evaluating the stability of aggregate results. The records explicitly distinguish this from population representativeness, so the result does not establish that the measured preferences reflect the wider public.
Does this challenge the goal?
In-scope gap
The question concerns how stable aggregate preference estimates were in a study, which is relevant to testing citizen-input methods within the existing goal. It does not contest that goal or establish representativeness.
The packet reports sample-level stability checks; it does not show that individual preferences were stable or that the sample represents a wider population.
Why this category?
- Relevant evidence about stability of aggregate preference estimates
- Limits on representativeness and individual-level interpretation preserved
The records interpret one preprint’s stability analysis. The reported estimates concern aggregate comparisons and do not establish individual-level preference stability or population representativeness.
This is an AI assessment of contribution to the goal, separate from whether the question has an answer.
Tests, stop conditions and unresolved work →
Read the exploration goalNew evidence is being assessed. Any answer below is provisional; parts whose evidence changed or was withdrawn are withheld.
State the reported stability results and clarify whether they concern aggregate estimates across samples rather than changes in individual participants’ preferences.
What we can say so far
The researchers reported that two non-overlapping random samples of 53 participants each produced an estimated R² of about 0.72 for proposal win rates. For the full sample, they reported a test-retest R² of 0.9538 for group preferences. These are aggregate measures of consistency in proposal win rates or group preferences across samples/retests; they do not show whether individual participants’ preferences changed or remained stable.
What remains open
- The supplied evidence does not report whether individual participants’ preferences changed or remained stable.
Conditions and limits
- The reported stability checks do not establish that the sampled preferences represent the wider population.
- The full-sample test-retest estimate is reported, but the supplied passage does not provide retest details.
Objections to consider
- The supplied passage does not give the retest details needed to assess the full-sample reliability estimate fully.
Evidence and related ideas
Supporting evidence, qualifications and context play different roles in this answer.
supports
Reported stability in the sample The researchers estimated that two random samples of 53 participants each, about 20% of the study sample, would produce an R² of about 0.72 for proposal win rates; they reported an R² of 0.9538 when using the full sample.
Provides the estimated R² for two 53-person samples and the full-sample result.
Large Language Models (LLMs) as Agents for Augmented Democracy
Read full source: Large Language Models (LLMs) as Agents for Augmented Democracy (opens in a new tab) ↗Read source discussion: Large Language Models (LLMs) as Agents for Augmented Democracy →
supports
A check on preference stability To check whether their participant sample was large enough for stable preference estimates, the researchers compared equal-sized, non-overlapping random samples using the correlation between proposal win rates.