Peer review: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 15:13, 16 January 2009

This page is a knowledge crystal of subtype method. The page identifier is Op_en2734
Moderator:Nobody (see all) Click here to sign up.

Upload data {{#opasnet_base_link:Op_en2734}}

This page is about peer review in open assessment. For other uses, see Peer review in Wikipedia.

Peer review in open assessment is a method for evaluating uncertainties that are not explicitly captured in the definition of the object (typically an assessment or a variable). Technically, it is a discussion on the Talk page and has a statement about whether the definition isthe following statement:

"This object describes a phenomenon that is defined in the scope. The description is located in the result. How the description was derived is documented in the definition. The definition/formula is a scientifically fulfills the following criteria:

The data used is representative and unbiased.
The causalities described are a comprehensive list. to describingscription reflects the reality in such a precise way that the uncertainties related to the results and/or conclusions can effectively and truthfully be evaluated using the parameter uncertainties described. In other words, there are no known model uncertainties that 1) would bias the results and that 2) are currently omitted."

Scope

What is the method of gaining social acceptance to an object?

Definition

Input

Output

Rationale

Result

Procedure

Peer review in open assessment is a method for evaluating model uncertainty, i.e. uncertainty that is not captured by the explicit parameter uncertainty, which is described by model parameters and distributions. Technically, it is a discussion about an object (typically an assessment or a variable), which has the following statement:

"This object describes a phenomenon that is defined in the scope. The description reflects the reality in such a precise way that the uncertainties related to the results and/or conclusions can effectively and truthfully be evaluated using the parameter uncertainties described. In other words, there are no known model uncertainties that 1) would bias the results and that 2) are currently omitted."

Management

The peer review discussion has the following form:

Peer review

How to read discussions

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 definition reflects the state-of-the-art of this field and does not lack any such sources of information that would clearly deviate the result from the current result. --Jouni 11:37, 16 January 2009 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

⇤--3: . The issue described in argument 2 is missing. --Jouni 11:37, 16 January 2009 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

←--2: . The issue of ...(describe the issue here)... is important and relevant for this object. --Jouni 11:37, 16 January 2009 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

References

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 This page is about peer review in [[open assessment]]. For other uses, see [[:en:Peer review|Peer review]] in Wikipedia.
-'''Peer review''' in [[open assessment]] is a [[method]] for evaluating [[model uncertainty]], i.e. [[uncertainty]] that is not captured by the explicit [[parameter uncertainty]], which is described by model parameters and distributions. Technically, it is a [[discussion]] about an [[object]] (typically an [[assessment]] or a [[variable]]), which has the following [[statement]]:
+'''Peer review''' in [[open assessment]] is a [[method]] for evaluating [[uncertainty|uncertainties]] that are not explicitly captured in the [[definition]] of the object (typically an [[assessment]] or a [[variable]]). Technically, it is a [[discussion]] on the Talk page and has a statement about whether the [[definition]] isthe following [[statement]]:
-: "This [[object]] describes a [[phenomenon]] that is defined in the [[scope]]. The description reflects the [[reality]] in such a precise way that the uncertainties related to the [[result]]s and/or [[conclusion]]s can effectively and truthfully be evaluated using the [[parameter uncertainty|parameter uncertainties]] described. In other words, there are no known [[model uncertainty|model uncertainties]] that 1) would bias the results and that 2) are currently omitted."
+: "This [[object]] describes a [[phenomenon]] that is defined in the [[scope]]. The description is located in the [[result]]. How the description was derived is documented in the [[definition]]. The definition/[[formula]] is a scientifically fulfills the following criteria:
+:* The data used is representative and unbiased.
+:*
+:* The causalities described are a comprehensive list. to describingscription reflects the [[reality]] in such a precise way that the uncertainties related to the [[result]]s and/or [[conclusion]]s can effectively and truthfully be evaluated using the [[parameter uncertainty|parameter uncertainties]] described. In other words, there are no known [[model uncertainty|model uncertainties]] that 1) would bias the results and that 2) are currently omitted."
 ==Scope==