|
|
| (16 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| <accesscontrol>Members of projects</accesscontrol>
| | '''Table of Contents for the Guidebook has been moved to: [[Guidebook]] |
| '''Guidebook specification''' describes the contents of the [[guidebook]] (to be developed).
| |
|
| |
|
| == Alex suggestions and comments to Jounis article "Table of Contents for the Guidebook"==
| | '''Text about the process and product objects in risk/impact assessment and within the guidance system, including article templates, have been moved to: [[Heande:Guidance system development]] |
|
| |
|
| {{comment|#(number): |I think, the processes and products should be put together and not separated too much.|--[[User:Alexandra Kuhn|Alexandra Kuhn]] 17:29, 14 January 2008 (EET)}}
| | '''Discussion about the object types (process/product descriptions) at : [[Talk:Guidebook]] |
| | |
| #Guidebook (product) 1
| |
| #* Scope of the guidebook 9
| |
| #Assessment (universal product)
| |
| #* Scope. Why to do (impact) assessment 3, 6, 12
| |
| #*Definition
| |
| #**What is an impact assessment
| |
| #**Different assessments: HIA, RA, IA... 4-5 (possibly own articles)
| |
| | |
| {{comment|#(number): |This part describes the process of performing an impact assessment. It goes not into details about the methodologies|--[[User:Alexandra Kuhn|Alexandra Kuhn]] 18:02, 14 January 2008 (EET)}}
| |
| #Performing an impact assessment (process:assessment framework) 10 {{comment|#(number): |Discussing with some colleagues here at USTUTT they said it would be good to describe the differences and communalities between causal chain, impact pathway approach, Deepsea, DPSIR. Where would this belong to?|--[[User:Alexandra Kuhn|Alexandra Kuhn]] 18:06, 14 January 2008 (EET)}}
| |
| #*Scope: Purpose of the impact assessment {{comment|#(number): |What would this be? A general purpose? something like policy consulting???|--[[User:Alexandra Kuhn|Alexandra Kuhn]] 18:02, 14 January 2008 (EET)}}
| |
| #*Definition
| |
| #**General methodology 10 ({{comment|#(number): |would be the same as the assessment framework? equals dimension "work environment" number 3.|--[[User:Alexandra Kuhn|Alexandra Kuhn]] 18:02, 14 January 2008 (EET)}})
| |
| #**description of methodology used 11
| |
| #*Result
| |
| #**Inputs
| |
| #**Procedure: Phases of an impact assessment 16
| |
| #***Scoping an impact assessment 26
| |
| #***Applying general information
| |
| #***Drawing a causal diagram 34
| |
| #***Designing variables
| |
| #***Executing variables and analyses
| |
| #***[[Reporting an assessment]]
| |
| #**Outputs
| |
| | |
| {{comment|#(number): |Processes needed for conducting the impact assessment.|--[[User:Alexandra Kuhn|Alexandra Kuhn]] 18:02, 14 January 2008 (EET)}}
| |
| #Open participation in (risk) assessment (process: method) 8
| |
| #Causal diagram (process: method) 34
| |
| #Reporting an assessment (process: method) 67
| |
| #*Scope
| |
| #*Definition: different approaches
| |
| #*Result
| |
| #**Reporting uncertainties 70, 73 (incl. qualitative and quantitative uncertainties)
| |
| #Stakeholder involvement (process: method) 68
| |
| | |
| {{comment|#(number): |Processes needed to help to specify the results of the variables.|--[[User:Alexandra Kuhn|Alexandra Kuhn]] 18:02, 14 January 2008 (EET)}}
| |
| #Issue framing (process:issue framing) {{comment|#(number): |Where would be the boundaries to "process: assessment framework?"|--[[User:Alexandra Kuhn|Alexandra Kuhn]] 18:02, 14 January 2008 (EET)}}
| |
| #* Scope:
| |
| #**Purpose, questions 27
| |
| #**Indicator selection 50
| |
| #**Boundaries 29
| |
| #**Scenarios 30-33
| |
| #*Definition
| |
| #**Variables
| |
| | |
| #Emission modelling (process: method) 36-39
| |
| #*Scope: purpose of emission modelling
| |
| #*Definition: background
| |
| #*Result:
| |
| #**How to model 37
| |
| #**Sectoral, spatial, and temporal resolution 38
| |
| #**Uncertainties 39
| |
| | |
| #Source-to-exposure modelling (process: method) 40
| |
| #*Scope: purpose
| |
| #*Definition: Different types 41
| |
| #*See also: pointers to resource centre 42
| |
| #*Direct approach: measure data ({{comment|#(number): |whatever. biomarkers, concentrations...|--[[User:Alexandra Kuhn|Alexandra Kuhn]] 18:02, 14 January 2008 (EET)}})
| |
| #*Uncertainties 43
| |
| | |
| #Exposure-response function modelling (process: method)
| |
| #*Scope 45
| |
| #*Definition:
| |
| #**Different types 46
| |
| #**How can they be derived? 47-48
| |
| #**Uncertainties 49
| |
| | |
| #Performing meta-analysis (process: method) 48
| |
| | |
| #Risk characterisation (process: method) 51
| |
| #*Scope
| |
| #*Definition: Selecting indicators 50
| |
| | |
| {{comment|#(number): |maybe we could summarise "DALYs / QUALYs and monetary valuation under "aggregation". But I don't know how to do this at the moment.|--[[User:Alexandra Kuhn|Alexandra Kuhn]] 18:02, 14 January 2008 (EET)}}
| |
| | |
| #Disability-adjusted life year (process: method) 52
| |
| #*Scope
| |
| #*Definition:
| |
| #** How are they derived 54
| |
| #**Alternatives 53
| |
| | |
| #Quality-adjusted life year (process: method) 52
| |
| | |
| #Monetary valuation (process: method) 59
| |
| #*Scope: Why do we need monetary values 60
| |
| #*Definition
| |
| #** Why do we choose monetary values and not utility points? 61
| |
| #*Result
| |
| #** How are monetary values derived 63
| |
| #** Discounting 64
| |
| #** Uncertainties 65
| |
| | |
| #Discounting (process: method) 64 {{comment|#(number): |This might be an article on its own and quite generic. We should have the methodology applied to DALYs and monetary valuation as well in those articles.|--[[User:Alexandra Kuhn|Alexandra Kuhn]] 18:02, 14 January 2008 (EET)}}
| |
| | |
| #Cost-benefit analysis (process: method) 62
| |
| | |
| #Risk perception (process: method) 55
| |
| | |
| #Multi-attribute utility analysis (process: method) 55
| |
| | |
| #Value judgement (process: method) 56
| |
| | |
| #Value-of-information analysis (process: method) 57
| |
| | |
| #Uncertainty assessment (process: method) 39, 43, 49, 58, 65, 69
| |
| #*Scope: Purpose of uncertainty assessment
| |
| #*Definition: Different approaches
| |
| #**Qualitative methods eg pedigree matrix 71
| |
| #**Quantitative methods 72-73
| |
| #**When to use which method? 73
| |
| #*Result
| |
| #**Uncertainty of the result: parameter uncertainty
| |
| #**Uncertainty of the definition: model uncertainty
| |
| #**Uncertainty of the scope: relevance
| |
| #Uncertainty tools (process: tool) 76 {{attack|#(number): |This does not belong into the Guidebook but it is good to keep it in mind.|--[[User:Alexandra Kuhn|Alexandra Kuhn]] 18:02, 14 January 2008 (EET)}}
| |
| #Propagating uncertainties (process: method) 72
| |
| #*Scope
| |
| #*Definition: approaches
| |
| #**Monte Carlo 72
| |
| #**Bayesian analysis 72
| |
| | |
| #Health impacts (universal product)
| |
| #: These might be needed also as parts of the resource centre {{comment|#(number): |Can't we put them into the method-part?|--[[User:Alexandra Kuhn|Alexandra Kuhn]] 18:02, 14 January 2008 (EET)}}
| |
| #Emissions (product: class)
| |
| #Exposures (product: class)
| |
| #Exposure-response function (product: class) 44
| |
| #Impacts (product: class) 77
| |
| #*Scope
| |
| #*Definition
| |
| #** [[Health impacts]]
| |
| #** Global warming 78 {{comment|#(number): |We decided to put this into a short chapter at the beginning.|--[[User:Alexandra Kuhn|Alexandra Kuhn]] 18:02, 14 January 2008 (EET)}}
| |
| #**Accidents 79 {{comment|#(number): |We decided to put this into a short chapter at the beginning.|--[[User:Alexandra Kuhn|Alexandra Kuhn]] 18:02, 14 January 2008 (EET)}}
| |
| #**Ecosystems and biodiversity 80 {{comment|#(number): |We decided to put this into a short chapter at the beginning.|--[[User:Alexandra Kuhn|Alexandra Kuhn]] 18:02, 14 January 2008 (EET)}}
| |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| '''Was in there once:''' | |
| #Impact assessment (product:assessment) {{attack|#(number): |What should this be? Why should we have that? Scenarios etc. should be positioned under the process as the user should be explained how to build a scenario. |--[[User:Alexandra Kuhn|Alexandra Kuhn]] 17:26, 14 January 2008 (EET)}}
| |
| #* Scope:
| |
| #**Purpose, questions 27
| |
| #**Boundaries 29
| |
| #**Scenarios 30-33
| |
| #*Definition
| |
| #**Variables
| |
| #**Analyses
| |
| #*Result
| |
| #**Results
| |
| #**Conclusions
| |
| | |
| '''Still missing (found in SP 1 method table and not in this TOC:'''
| |
| - equity issues
| |
| - expert panel / elicitation
| |
| - multiple-bias modelling
| |
| - GIS and spatial issues
| |
| - collective struktured learning
| |
| - mass collaboration
| |
| - dealing with disputes
| |
| -
| |
| | |
| ==Article templates==
| |
| | |
| What are processes and products?
| |
| | |
| The guidance system will be composed of pages related to processes, and pages related to products, perhaps complemented with a few so-called ‘glue pages’, which could contain information that is not easily captured in the process/product structure. <span style="color:red;"> ...which are on the top-level of the Guidebook and give a short overview over the topic linking to the respective process and products articles. </span>
| |
|
| |
| A process is a method (tool, model, calculation, formal discussion, etc) in which various inputs are formed into a new product; the output. A process is “something you do”.
| |
| | |
| A product is both the input as well as the output of a process, and is a representation of reality (it can – at least in theory – be validated against reality).
| |
| | |
| Processes can lead to various products and products can be developed in various processes (there is not necessarily a 1 -1 relationship between processes and products)
| |
| | |
| (I did not think at all about nice words for these definitions, because I’m quite sure KTL has them already!)
| |
| | |
| {{comment|#(number): |So what would this mean for a variable? Is the formula in the variable the process and the result of the variable is the product?
| |
| What would this mean for a model? Is the model the process and the result the product?|--[[User:Alexandra Kuhn|Alexandra Kuhn]] 12:50, 14 January 2008 (EET)}}
| |
| | |
| | |
| Process/ product structure in Intarese
| |
| | |
| Elements of the Intarese method as developed in SP1 relate to either a process, or a product, or both. The graph below gives an idea of processes and products as developed in the Intarese project (graph should be improved/updated, if we want to present such a graph!) . For all processes and products, information needs to be provided in the guidance system.
| |
| | |
| When there is a clear 1 – 1 relationship between process and product (eg DALY process – DALY product), we will only ask for description of either process or product, in order to avoid confusion.
| |
| When there is no such direct 1 – 1 relationship, we will ask for separate description of process and product. An example of this is the process meta analysis, and the product exposure response function (ERF). Even though the process of meta analysis can lead to an estimation of the ERF, the meta analysis can also lead to an estimation of another product (eg severity weight), and an ERF (the product) can also be derived from another process (eg expert judgment).
| |
| | |
| How should an article about disability-adjusted life years be structured? The question is not at all obvious, so the different options are tested here. Discussion about the goodness of approaches is welcome. The following parts are repeated several times in the table; therefore, they are listed here and only referred to in the table.
| |
| ;Purpose: DALY translates the impacts of diseases into life years based on their severity and duration, so that different diseases can be measured using a single currency, the life year. DALYs are based on disease-specific weights. (In contrast, QALYs evaluate the quality of life in a certain health state, not disease.)
| |
| ;Formula: DALY = life-years lost YLL (due to mortality) + life-years with disease YLD = YLL + number of disease cases * severity weight of the disease * the duration of the disease
| |
| : the severity weights for diseases come from the variable [[Variable:Disability-adjusted weights for diseases]]
| |
| | |
| In this ontology, the scope can be seen as a research question. The answer to this question is the result, and the definition tells how this result can be achieved.
| |
| | |
| {| {{prettytable}}
| |
| !Approach
| |
| !Scope
| |
| !Definition
| |
| !Result
| |
| |-----
| |
| !Variable (product object)
| |
| |'''DALY''' is a summary measure of burden of disease adding up increased mortality (years of life lost) and years lived with disability. '''Purpose''' <br>
| |
| '''The research question:''' What is the average DALY per person?
| |
| |Subattributes: Data tells about what data there exists about DALY estimates and gives links to the most important publications. Causality lists the upstream variables mentioned in the formula (see below). Unit is life-year. Formula is the '''formula'''.
| |
| |Result gives estimates for DALYs. However, the research question does not fulfil the clairvoyant criteria (or, it can be thought to apply to each individual in the world!) Therefore, only a few most important results (if any) can be mentioned here for illustration.
| |
| |-----
| |
| !Method (process object)
| |
| |'''DALY estimation''' is a process for measuring summarised burden of disease adding up increased mortality (years of life lost) and years lived with disability. '''Purpose''' <br>
| |
| '''The research question:''' What is a good way to estimate DALYs?
| |
| |The definition contains the reasoning and motivation for calculating DALYs. It compares and discusses different alternatives. It contains links to methodology articles. It is also open for comments and further developments.
| |
| |The result describes the state-of-the-art method and formulas such as the '''formula'''. The result is based on the content of the definition. Sub-attributes include input (the upstream variables), procedure (the calculations), and output (format of the process output).
| |
| |-----
| |
| !Class (product object)
| |
| |This '''DALY''' class describes the common properties of all objects that share this key property: The object is a summary measure of burden of disease adding up increased mortality (years of life lost) and years lived with disability. '''Purpose''' <br>
| |
| '''The research question:''' What are the common properties of all objects that fulfil the key property?
| |
| |Definition describes all other common properties of these objects. It also includes the discussions about the properties and whether they really are common to the objects. The most important property is the '''formula'''.
| |
| |The result contains a list of all objects (mainly variables) that belong to this class, i.e. variables that use DALYs to measure summary health impacts.
| |
| |-----
| |
| !Universal (product object)
| |
| |The '''kind of DALY''' describes the essence of DALY objects: a DALY object is a summary measure of burden of disease adding up increased mortality (years of life lost) and years lived with disability. '''Purpose'''
| |
| :{{comment|#1: |Maybe an universal (as defined by Loew) is actually the scope and definition attributes of a class, while the class (as defined mathematically as a particular kind of set) is the result attribute of the same object. In this way, Loew is happy, because we separate universals and classes and give the universal a stronger epistemological weight.|--[[User:Jouni|Jouni]] 00:45, 13 January 2008 (EET)}}
| |
| |Definition describes other properties of the "kind of DALY". The most important property is the '''formula'''.
| |
| :{{comment|#1: |With universals, the distinction between the scope and definition is not clear?|--[[User:Jouni|Jouni]] 00:45, 13 January 2008 (EET)}}
| |
| |Not relevant for universals?
| |
| |}
| |
| | |
| ===Conclusions===
| |
| | |
| #Of these possibilities, the process (method) seems to be the most suitable object for DALY. {{defend|#(number): |This would mean that in the definition-part we describe several alternatives and in the result-part we describe the one that is best suitable? what happens if there is no alternative? e.g. if we describe Monte-Carlo-analysis? then, the definition would be the same as the result.|--[[User:Alexandra Kuhn|Alexandra Kuhn]] 14:21, 14 January 2008 (EET)}} {{attack|#(number): |Should we also - in addition to the process object - have the product object? or are the parts too much redundand? I suppose so... .|--[[User:Alexandra Kuhn|Alexandra Kuhn]] 14:21, 14 January 2008 (EET)}}
| |
| #This previous idea was not a good one: idea that there is a general product object which contains the essence of DALY, and then a process object with only the '''formula''' to calculate the DALYs (the idea that the process object is trivial given the product object).
| |
| #Most of the content in the guidebook is the first meta level: how to perform the process of an assessment. Thus, the content is not about the real world (the "zero meta level").
| |
| #The '''purpose''' of all processes is to describe a good process for achieving the outcome described in the '''scope'''. Thus, scope belongs to the purpose of a particular process object.
| |
| #The '''definition''' of a process describes the information you need to understand whether some process is suitable and good for the purpose. The definition together form the structure of the process (in the same way as with variables). {{comment|#(number): |??? We should only put such method descriptions into the definition-part that are helpful for achieving the purpose anyway?|--[[User:Alexandra Kuhn|Alexandra Kuhn]] 14:21, 14 January 2008 (EET)}}
| |
| #The '''result''' describes the state-of-the-art method for fulfilling the purpose. {{comment|#(number): |What happens if there are several??? e.g. Exposure-Response-Function estimation (process object): modelling, meta-analyses, epi-studies... Or would we have then several process objects for each of the methods? We could have generic meta-analysis as a separate process object and then apply this method/process on the ERFs and put this into the definition-part of the ERFs estimation? But there is still not ONE method that would prove valid for the results-part.|--[[User:Alexandra Kuhn|Alexandra Kuhn]] 14:21, 14 January 2008 (EET)}}
| |
| #The class cannot be used here, because it is not clear how that would be applied in practical assessments. The common properties in the definition do not necessarily form a whole method that can be applied.
| |
| | |
| Example: products and processes in Intarese guidance system
| |
| | |
| ===Template: process===
| |
| | |
| The process template is the most common template for the guidebook contents.
| |
| | |
| ;Summary: The summary of a process is a very short overview of the process, and may contain all types of information that are considered relevant for this specific process (max words: 250?)
| |
| ;Name: The name of the process should be unique (there should not be two objects (processes or products) with identical names). The name should be chosen so that it is descriptive, unambiguous and not easily confused with other products/ processes. (max words: 20?)
| |
| ;Scope: The scope of the process describes its purpose: what is the process to be used for? This should contain all relevant information needed to distinguish the process from other processes. (max words: 400?)
| |
| ;Definition: This section may contain a link (or a "more" button) to further background information about the process, eg its history, current practice, etc) (or where do we put this background info?) It also contains links top other processes or products that are related, or function as input to the process, as well as to the resource centre. (max words: 2000) {{comment|#(number): |the background information should be positioned in one or several background articles. These may be unstructured objects. (although I think that our structure is so general that it can be made applicable to nearly anything) If the information is necessary to understand or apply the process, it should be added in the process article itself. The “more” part is not thought to hide irrelevant background information because the “more” just should be in the article to enhance readability.|--[[User:Alexandra Kuhn|Alexandra Kuhn]] 12:50, 14 January 2008 (EET)}}
| |
| ;Results: The result section has three sub-attributes. (max words: 3000?)
| |
| :;Input: The input variables or parameters, their syntax, and other relevant information is described here.
| |
| :;Procedure: The actual process – how it works – is described here. It consists of e.g. the mathematical formula to calculate the result. The procedure uses algebra or other explicit methods if possible.
| |
| :; Output: shortly describes the product of the process, which should fulfil the purpose as described in the scope. It furthermore links – if applicable – to the product object.
| |
| ;See also: See also links to pages (both internal guidebook pages and external) which relate to the process subject. All subjects that could be relevant for readers of this page can be listed here. (max links: 20?)
| |
| ;References: All references, as used in the texts above. (max references: 30?)
| |
| | |
| ===Template: product===
| |
| | |
| Product is common in the resource centre, as the products describe real-world entities ("zero meta level") and they are products of the assessment (sub-)processes.
| |
| | |
| ;Summary: The summary of a product is a very short description of the product, and may contain all types of information that are considered relevant for this specific product (max words: 250?)
| |
| ;Name: The name of the product should be unique (there should not be two products or processes with identical names). The name should be chosen so that it is descriptive, unambiguous and not easily confused with other products/ processes. (max words: 20?)
| |
| ;Scope: The scope of the product gives a research question that this product object aims to answer. The scope includes – if applicable – its spatial, temporal, or other limits (system boundaries). (max words: 400?) {{comment|#(number): |Must this be a research question??? ''If'' we have something like a DALY object or an ERF object to which research question would these apply? Could you give an example of a research question? Maybe, if we decide that for DALYs and ERFs and such like the process is more important than the product and if the product is also included in the results-part of the project, would we then end up with variables as only products? These would never be generic als guidance for the guidebook but would always be used in assessments and therefore would belong to the resource centre. Did I forget something?|--[[User:Alexandra Kuhn|Alexandra Kuhn]] 14:26, 14 January 2008 (EET)}}
| |
| ;Definition: The definition describes the data and reasoning that tells us what the answer to the question in the scope is. In the case of a variable, it has four sub-attributes: Data, Causality, Unit, and Formula. This section may contain a link ( or a "more" button) to further background information about the product, eg its history, current practice, etc) (or where do we put this background info?) {{comment|#(number): |See my comment about this in the Process template.|--[[User:Alexandra Kuhn|Alexandra Kuhn]] 12:50, 14 January 2008 (EET)}} Definition may link to the process(es) that lead to this product, explaining shortly why these processes are relevant. (max words: 3000?)
| |
| ;Results: Contains the answer to the question presented in the scope. Usually the text is short (max 500 words), but the result tables or figures may be extensive; there is no upper limit.
| |
| ;See also: See also links to pages (both internal resources centre pages and external) which relate to the product. All subjects that could be relevant for readers of this page can be listed here. (max links: 20?)
| |
| ;References: All references, as used in the texts above. (max references: 30?)
| |
| | |
| ===Practical information for both templates===
| |
| {{comment|#(number): |General information on how the sentences should be structured etc. (see also my first version and the project that RIVM already have conducted.|--[[User:Alexandra Kuhn|Alexandra Kuhn]] 12:50, 14 January 2008 (EET)}}
| |
| | |
| ==Dimensions and hierarchies==
| |
| | |
| The guidance system has several dimensions and hierarchies. It can therefore be confusing to browse through different parts. This is an attempt to clarify these issues. The hierarchies are listed from bottom to top for each dimension.
| |
| *Dimension: '''classes
| |
| *#Item: an object that belongs to a particular class. For example, a pollutant concentration in a particular location at a particular time.
| |
| *#Class: a set of all objects that share a key property, defined in the scope of the class. For example a class of "dioxin concentration objects" (in any spatio-temporal location) forms a class that can be useful when utilising the full chain approach for a dioxin assessment.
| |
| *Dimension: '''real world (or product object dimension?)
| |
| *#Variable: this level looks at individual product objects (typically variables) that describe particular pieces of reality.
| |
| *#Assessment: this level looks at groups of variables that together form a synthesis of a particular problem at hand.
| |
| *#Policy context: this level looks a particular problem as its relation to the policy context in which it is assessed. This level is usually not described explicitly.
| |
| *Dimension: '''work environment (or process object dimension?)
| |
| *#Tool: a practical operationalisation (a software or a program) of a particular method
| |
| *#Method: a procedure for manipulating information (about the real world) into a useful form for a particular place in an assessment.
| |
| *#Assessment framework: A distinct set of methods that, when used together, form a scientifically coherent and efficient way for manipulating all information that is needed to perform a particular kind of an assessment.
| |
| *#Scientific context: this level looks at the assessment frameworks in their scientific context in which they are used. This level is usually not described explicitly.
| |
| * <span style="color:#ff0000;"> Dimension:'''Guidebook articles </span>
| |
| *# <span style="color:#ff0000;"> Maybe: "glue" articles that are a summary of all the other articles concerning one big topic </span>
| |
| *# <span style="color:#ff0000;"> Process articles (descriptions of methodologies) and Product articles </span>
| |
| *# <span style="color:#ff0000;"> Background articles (unstructured objects???) describing the background/history of information used in the process and product articles. </span>
| |
| * <span style="color:#ff0000;"> Dimension:'''Resource Centre </span>
| |
| *# <span style="color:#ff0000;"> a) Tools/models: a software or a program b) Core data set (incl. description) </span>
| |
| *# <span style="color:#ff0000;"> a) Links to tools/models and description of the tools/models (metadata). b) Links to data and description of the data (metadata). </span>
| |
| *# <span style="color:#ff0000;"> a) Links to tool/model databases and description of the tool/model databases (meta-metadata). b) Links to databases and description of the databases (metadata). </span>
| |
| *# <span style="color:#ff0000;"> Links to data and description of the data (meta-metadata). </span>
| |
| * <span style="color:#ff0000;"> Dimension:'''Tools/Models </span>
| |
| *# <span style="color:#ff0000;"> Tools/Models that help to specify the result of the variables (so dealing with the product of the assessment). These would be e.g. Chimère, WATSON... </span> {{comment|#(number): |Jouni, see the difference between a model and a tool?|--[[User:Alexandra Kuhn|Alexandra Kuhn]] 14:56, 14 January 2008 (EET)}}
| |
| *# <span style="color:#ff0000;"> Tools that help to perform the assessment as such (so dealing with the process of an assessment). These would be e.g. a tool for stakeholder involvement. </span> {{comment|#(number): |I'm not quite sure where to put tools for issue framing and uncertainty analysis, e.g. Monte-Carlo-analysis tool. I would see them spontanously as tools for the procss of the assessment, but they have also influence on (single) variables...|--[[User:Alexandra Kuhn|Alexandra Kuhn]] 14:56, 14 January 2008 (EET)}}
| |
| *Dimension: '''meta
| |
| *#Zero meta level: this level asks: "What does the real world look like?"
| |
| *#First meta level: this level asks: "How do we do assessments to find out how the real world looks like?"
| |
| *#Second meta level: this level asks: "How can we know how we should do the assessments?"
| |
| *#Third meta level: this level asks: "How can we know how we can know about good assessments?" (rarely needed or described)
| |