|
|
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{discussion
| | #REDIRECT [[:heande:Talk:Evaluating performance of environmental health assessments]] |
| |Dispute= Evaluation is impossible without an external standard.
| |
| |Outcome=
| |
| |Argumentation =
| |
| {{comment|#1: |Against what do you compare if there is no such thing as the golden standard?|--[[User:Alexandra Kuhn|Alexandra Kuhn]] 18:02, 17 March 2008 (EET)}}
| |
| {{defend|#(number): |Evaluation of calibration and informativeness is only possible against an external standard. In expert elicitation, there exists a "golden standard", which is the set of seed questions for which true answers are known. Even if the external standard is not golden (i.e., it can be the personal opinion of an external reviewer), it can be used. Of course, the evaluation can only be as good as is the standard that is used.|--[[User:Jouni|Jouni]] 00:52, 18 March 2008 (EET)}}
| |
| }}
| |