Talk:Assessment: Difference between revisions
(scenario under definition?) |
(participants to definition) |
||
| Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
}} | }} | ||
==Scenarios== | |||
=Scenarios== | |||
{{discussion | {{discussion | ||
| Line 46: | Line 45: | ||
{{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)}} | {{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)}} | ||
}} | |||
==Participants== | |||
{{discussion | |||
|Dispute= Participants should belong under definition | |||
|Outcome= Under discussion (to be changed when a conclusion is found) | |||
|Argumentation = | |||
{{defend|#1: |Arranging, organizing, inviting participation to the assessment is actually a means of attempting to adequately answer the assessment question(s) defined in the scope. Purpose, boundaries and users (which aggregately could be called e.g. the assessment ''problem'') reflect the assessment external needs that are addressed. Participants (and scenarios as well) are more of means of getting about in making the assessment in trying to adequately reflect the ''problem''. If scope is intended to be the ''problem'', definition the ''hypothetical suggested solution to the problem'', and result the ''outcome of the solution attempt'', I would say that participants (and scenarios as well) belong to the definition.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 08:46, 12 February 2009 (EET)}} | |||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 06:46, 12 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) |
Participants
| Fact discussion: . |
|---|
| Opening statement:
Closing statement: Resolution not yet found. (A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.) |
| Argumentation:
←--#1:: . Arranging, organizing, inviting participation to the assessment is actually a means of attempting to adequately answer the assessment question(s) defined in the scope. Purpose, boundaries and users (which aggregately could be called e.g. the assessment problem) reflect the assessment external needs that are addressed. Participants (and scenarios as well) are more of means of getting about in making the assessment in trying to adequately reflect the problem. If scope is intended to be the problem, definition the hypothetical suggested solution to the problem, and result the outcome of the solution attempt, I would say that participants (and scenarios as well) belong to the definition. --Mikko Pohjola 08:46, 12 February 2009 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
|