Talk:Evaluating performance of environmental health assessments: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(answer to the golden standard question) |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
|Argumentation = | |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)}} | {{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|# | |||
{{defend|#2: |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)}} | |||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 22:53, 17 March 2008
| Fact discussion: . |
|---|
| Opening statement:
Closing statement: Resolution not yet found. (A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.) |
| Argumentation:
----#1:: . Against what do you compare if there is no such thing as the golden standard? --Alexandra Kuhn 18:02, 17 March 2008 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment) ←--#2:: . 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. --Jouni 00:52, 18 March 2008 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence) |