|
|
| (13 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| <accesscontrol>Members of projects,,Workshop2008,,beneris,,Erac,,Heimtsa,,Hiwate,,Intarese</accesscontrol>
| | #REDIRECT [[:heande:Information structure of Open Assessment]] |
| [[Category:Manuscript]] | |
|
| |
|
| This is a manuscript about the information structure of Open Assessment.
| | [[Category:Open assessment]][[category:nuggets]][[category:manuscript]] |
| | |
| '''Information structure of open assessment
| |
| | |
| Jouni T. Tuomisto<sup>1</sup>, Mikko Pohjola<sup>1</sup>, Alexandra Kuhn<sup>2</sup>
| |
| | |
| <sup>1</sup>National Public Health Institute, P.O.Box 95, FI-70701 Kuopio, Finland
| |
| | |
| <sup>2</sup>IER, Universitaet Stuttgart, Hessbruehlstr. 49 a, 70565 Stuttgart, Germany
| |
| | |
| == Abstract ==
| |
| | |
| === Background ===
| |
| | |
| === Methods ===
| |
| | |
| === Results ===
| |
| | |
| === Conclusions ===
| |
| | |
| == Background ==
| |
| | |
| Many future environmental health problems are global, cross administrative boundaries, and are caused by everyday activities of billions of people. Urban air pollution or climate change are typical problems of this kind. The traditional risk assessment procedures, developed for single-chemical, single-decision-maker, pre-market decisions do not perform well with the new challenges. There is an urgent need to develop new assessment methods that could deal with the new fuzzy but far-reaching and severe problems<ref>Briggs et al (2008) Manuscript. </ref>.
| |
| | |
| A major need is for a systematic approach that is not limited to any particular kind of situation (such as chemical marketing), and is specifically designed to offer guidance for decision-making. Our main interest is in societal decision-making related to environmental health, formulated into the following research question: '''How can scientific information and value judgements be organised for improving societal decision-making in a situation where open participation is allowed?
| |
| | |
| As the question shows, we find it important that the approach to be developed covers wider domains than environmental health. In addition, the approach should be flexible enough to subsume the wide range of current methods that are designed for specific needs within the overall assessment process. Examples of such methods are source-apportionment of exposures, genotoxicity testing, Monte Carlo simulation, or elicitation of expert judgement. As openness is one of the starting points for method development, we call the new kinds of assessments '''open assessments'''. Practical lessons about openness have been described in another paper<ref>Tuomisto et al. (2008) [[:intarese:Manuscript:Open participation in risk assessment|Open participation in the environmental health risk assessment]]. Submitted</ref>
| |
| | |
| In another paper from our group, we identified three main properties that the new assessment method should fulfil <ref>Pohjola and Tuomisto. (2008) [[Purpose determines the structure of environmental health assessments]]. Manuscript.</ref>. These are the following: 1) The whole assessment work and a subsequent report are open to critical evaluation by anyone interested at any point during the work; 2) all data and all methods must be falsifiable and they are subject to scientific criticism, and 3) all parts of one assessment must be reusable in other assessments.
| |
| | |
| In this study, we developed an information structure that fulfils all the three criteria. Specifically, we attempted to answer the following question: '''What are the object types needed and the structures of these objects such that the three criteria of openness, falsifiability, and reusability are fulfilled; the resulting structure can be used in practical assessment; and the assessment can be operationalised using modern computer technology?
| |
| | |
| [[Image:Context Process and product.PNG|center|Figure 1. An assessment consists of the making of it and an end product, usually a report. The assessment is bound and structured by its context. Main parts of the context are the scientific context (methods and paradigms available), the policy context (the decision situation for which the information is needed), and the use process (the actual decision-making process where the assessment report is used).]]
| |
| | |
| == Methods ==
| |
| | |
| The work presented here is based on research questions. The main question presented in the Background was divided into several smaller questions, which were more detailed questions about particular objects and their requirements. The majority of work performed was a series of exploratory (and exhaustive, according to most observers) discussions about the essence of the objects. The discussions were iterative so that we repeatedly came back to the same topics until we found that they are coherent with other parts of our information structure, covered all major parts of assessment work and report, and seemed to be conceptually clear enough to be practical.
| |
| | |
| The current answers to these questions should be seen as hypotheses that will be tested against observations and practical experience as the work goes on. The research questions are presented in the Results section together with the current answer. In the Methods section, we briefly present the most important scientific methodologies that were used as the basis for this work.
| |
| | |
| [[PSSP]] is a general ontology for organising information and process descriptions<ref>Pohjola et al. (2008). [[PSSP ontology - theory and application in environmental health assessments|PSSP - A top-level event/substance ontology and its application in environmental health assessment]]. Manuscript</ref>. PSSP offers a uniform and systematic information structure for all systems, whether small details or large integrated models. The four attributes of PSSP (Purpose, Structure, State, Performance) enable hierarchical descriptions where the same attributes are used in all levels.
| |
| | |
| A central property in science is asking questions, and giving answers that are falsifiable hypotheses. Falsification is a process where a hypothesis is tested against observations and is falsified if it is inconsistent with them<ref>Popper, Karl R. (1935). Logik der Forschung. Julius Springer Verlag. Reprinted in English, Routledge, London, 2004.</ref>. The idea of [[falsification]] and scientific criticism is the reason why we have organised the whole assessment method development as research questions and attempts to answer them.
| |
| | |
| Bayesian network is a probabilistic graphical model that represents a set of variables and their probabilistic independencies. It is a directed acyclic graph whose nodes represent variables, and whose arcs encode conditional independencies between the variables<ref>Pearl, Judea (2000). Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-77362-8.</ref>. Nodes can represent any kind of variable, be it a measured parameter, a latent variable a hypothesis. They are not restricted to representing random variables. Generalizations of Bayesian networks that can represent and solve decision problems under uncertainty are called influence diagrams.
| |
| | |
| Decision analysis is concerned with identifying the best decision to take, assuming an ideal decision maker who is fully informed, able to compute with perfect accuracy, and fully rational. The practical application is aimed at finding tools, methodologies and software to help people make better decisions<ref>Howard Raiffa. (1997) Decision Analysis: Introductory Readings on Choices Under Uncertainty. McGraw Hill. ISBN 0-07-052579-X</ref>.
| |
| | |
| The pragma-dialectical theory is an argumentation theory that is used to analyze and evaluate argumentation in actual practice<ref>Eemeren, F.H. van, & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.</ref>. Unlike strictly logical approaches (which focus on the study of argument as product), or purely communication approaches (which emphasize argument as a process), pragma-dialectics was developed to study the entirity of an argumentation as a discourse activity. Thus, the pragma-dialectical theory views argumentation as a complex speech act that occurs as part of natural language activities and has specific communicative goals.
| |
| | |
| == Results ==
| |
| | |
| ===Universal products===
| |
| | |
| {{{{ns:0}}:Universal products}}
| |
| | |
| ===Structure of an attribute===
| |
| | |
| {{{{ns:0}}:Attribute}}
| |
| | |
| ===Structure of an assessment product===
| |
| | |
| {{{{ns:0}}:Assessment}}
| |
| | |
| ===Structure of a variable===
| |
| | |
| {{{{ns:0}}:Variable}}
| |
| | |
| ===Structure of a discussion ===
| |
| | |
| {{{{ns:0}}:Discussion}}
| |
| | |
| * parts of discussion (hierarchy does NOT show temporal issues but targets of arguments)
| |
| * (parts of argument?)
| |
| | |
| ===Structure of a method===
| |
| | |
| {{{{ns:0}}:Method}}
| |
| | |
| * [[Model]], [[Tool]] (what is the difference between the two?)
| |
| | |
| ===Structure of a class===
| |
| | |
| {{{{ns:0}}:Class}}
| |
| | |
| ===Objects in different abstraction levels===
| |
| | |
| * Abstraction level (not written down?)
| |
| | |
| ===Performance in the information structure===
| |
| | |
| * Performance, including uncertainty [[Evaluating assessment performance]], [[Assessing uncertainty]], [[Quality assurance and quality control]], [[Purpose and properties of good assessments]]
| |
| | |
| == Conclusions ==
| |
| | |
| == Competing interests ==
| |
| | |
| == Authors' contributions ==
| |
| | |
| == Acknowledgements ==
| |
| | |
| == References ==
| |
| | |
| <references/>
| |
| | |
| == Figures ==
| |
| | |
| [[Image:Context Process and product.PNG]]
| |
| | |
| | |
| [[image:Variable definition.PNG]]
| |
| | |
| == Tables ==
| |
| | |
| == Additional files ==
| |