Talk:Assessment: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
(scenario under definition?) |
||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
:{{comment|#(number): |Much better! So is the '''assessment product''' the same as the '''result of the assessment''' as you define it in your comment? If yes, we should add that definition in brackets to the first item of the article page.|--[[User:Alexandra Kuhn|Alexandra Kuhn]] 07:45, 16 May 2008 (EEST)}} | :{{comment|#(number): |Much better! So is the '''assessment product''' the same as the '''result of the assessment''' as you define it in your comment? If yes, we should add that definition in brackets to the first item of the article page.|--[[User:Alexandra Kuhn|Alexandra Kuhn]] 07:45, 16 May 2008 (EEST)}} | ||
}} | }} | ||
==Appraisal== | |||
{{discussion | {{discussion | ||
| Line 32: | Line 34: | ||
|Argumentation = | |Argumentation = | ||
{{defend|#1: |If we consider ''appraisal'' as incorporation of value judgments within the assessment, the means by which this is done should be explicated in the definition. |--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 13:41, 9 February 2009 (EET)}} | {{defend|#1: |If we consider ''appraisal'' as incorporation of value judgments within the assessment, the means by which this is done should be explicated in the definition. |--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 13:41, 9 February 2009 (EET)}} | ||
}} | |||
=Scenarios== | |||
{{discussion | |||
|Dispute= Scenarios should belong under definition/analyses | |||
|Outcome= Under discussion (to be changed when a conclusion is found) | |||
|Argumentation = | |||
{{defend|#1: |Scenarios, meaning intentional deviations from the best estimate for a variable or a set of variables, are a means of analyzing the information within an assessment. Therefore scenarios should belong under definition, most nicely under analyses, instead of scope. A description of the base-case, i.e. the best estimate should belong to scope instead.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 09:14, 10 February 2009 (EET)}} | |||
{{comment|#2: |The question still remains: is there some conceptual difference between conditioning and scenarios?|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 09:14, 10 February 2009 (EET)}} | |||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 07:14, 10 February 2009
| Fact discussion: . |
|---|
| Opening statement:
Closing statement: Resolution not yet found. (A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.) |
| Argumentation:
←--#1:: . Although the causal diagram can be derived from the variables themselves and as such does not add any new content, it should nevertheless be listed here. Because it depicts the assessment and many people understand a graphic better than a set of abstract descriptions. Also, one sees if the variables one is creating fit together. I would even say, the normal way to scope an assessment is starting with the causal diagram (after the purpose and boundaries). --Alexandra Kuhn 11:18, 29 March 2008 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
----#3:: . Indeed, the causal diagram is only an alternative way of representing the contents of an assessment. --Mikko Pohjola 14:42, 15 May 2008 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment) ----#(number):: . I did not say that it has new infiormation. I SAID it does not contain additional information. BUT still I think it is useful to have it there. --Alexandra Kuhn 17:27, 9 June 2008 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment) |
| Fact discussion: . |
|---|
| Opening statement:
Closing statement: Resolution not yet found. (A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.) |
| Argumentation:
←--#1:: . The assessment structure is more general than only for risk assessment. Rename it therefore in assessment (or maybe open assessment). --Alexandra Kuhn 11:18, 29 March 2008 (EET), --Jouni 22:42, 31 March 2008 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
|
| Fact discussion: . |
|---|
| Opening statement:
Closing statement: Resolution not yet found. (A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.) |
| Argumentation:
←--#1:: . Using assessment product and endpoints is a bit confusing. what do you mean by this? results of the indicator variables?, results of the assessment? (whatever this is), health endpoints? Is the assessment product the assessment as a whole (i.e. net of variables at a certain stage in time) or the results of certain indicators? --Alexandra Kuhn 12:17, 14 May 2008 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
|
Appraisal
| Fact discussion: . |
|---|
| Opening statement:
Closing statement: Resolution not yet found. (A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.) |
| Argumentation:
←--#1:: . If we consider appraisal as incorporation of value judgments within the assessment, the means by which this is done should be explicated in the definition. --Mikko Pohjola 13:41, 9 February 2009 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
|
Scenarios=
| Fact discussion: . |
|---|
| Opening statement:
Closing statement: Resolution not yet found. (A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.) |
| Argumentation:
←--#1:: . Scenarios, meaning intentional deviations from the best estimate for a variable or a set of variables, are a means of analyzing the information within an assessment. Therefore scenarios should belong under definition, most nicely under analyses, instead of scope. A description of the base-case, i.e. the best estimate should belong to scope instead. --Mikko Pohjola 09:14, 10 February 2009 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence) ----#2:: . The question still remains: is there some conceptual difference between conditioning and scenarios? --Mikko Pohjola 09:14, 10 February 2009 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment) |