Contribution to the handbook
Supporting · Assessed 2026-10-28
The stability estimate and its stated context are useful when interpreting preference data, but they do not themselves specify a governance mechanism or establish population representativeness.
Does this challenge the goal?
None identified
The question asks about estimate stability in a study, not whether the handbook should pursue a different goal or serve a different beneficiary group.
Within-sample stability does not establish that the estimates represent a wider public.
Why this category?
- estimate reliability
- population-scope limitation
The supplied passages do not provide full retest methods. The reported stability is limited to the study sample and does not show representativeness or transfer to other populations.
This is an AI assessment of contribution to the goal, separate from whether the question has an answer.
Tests, stop conditions and unresolved work →
Authority, accountability and resilience →
Read the exploration goalNew evidence is being assessed. Any answer below is provisional; parts whose evidence changed or was withdrawn are withheld.
Give the reported stability estimate and the context the authors provide for it.
What we can say so far
The authors report full-sample test–retest consistency of 0.9538 (95.38%). They also report that two random samples of 53 participants each—about 20% of the study sample—would yield an R² of about 0.72 for proposal win rates. As context, they say the full-sample estimate is consistent with earlier paired-comparison work in which rankings tended to converge after about 30–40 choices per participant.
What remains open
- The supplied passages do not provide retest details or explain how closely the earlier study conditions match this study.
Conditions and limits
- The estimates concern the study sample and its stability checks; they do not establish that sampled preferences represent Brazil or the wider population.
- The earlier paired-comparison work is context for the authors’ estimate, not independent validation.
Objections to consider
- The stability results do not establish that the sampled preferences reflect the wider population.
Evidence and related ideas
Supporting evidence, qualifications and context play different roles in this answer.
supports
Group preferences were consistent on retest The authors estimate 95.38% test-retest reliability for the group’s preferences in the full participant sample. They say this is consistent with earlier paired-comparison work, where rankings tended to converge after about 30 to 40 choices per participant.
Reports 95.38% full-sample test–retest reliability and the authors’ comparison to earlier paired-comparison work.
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 →
qualifies
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.
Adds the 53-participant subsample estimate and limits interpretation to a data-adequacy stability check, not population representativeness.
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 →