Talk:Guidebook
Processes and products in guidebook
| Fact discussion: . |
|---|
| Opening statement:
Closing statement: Resolution not yet found. (A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.) |
| Argumentation:
←--#2):: . On the level of actual assessment there are the processes themselves and the products (structured descriptions of reality) themselves. A guidebook should be about the processes and the about the products, i.e. it should contain process descriptions and product descriptions. Because the types of products that different processes produce are already described under the structure of the process/output format attribute, there is no need to make separate product descriptions. --Mikko Pohjola 13:15, 18 January 2008 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence) ⇤--#3:: . 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. In most cases, the process is the important object that needs to be described, and in practice the methods etc. described in the guidebook will be process descriptions. When there is no such direct 1 – 1 relationship, we will ask for separate description of process and product. An example of this is meta-analysis (process), and the exposure response function (ERF) (product). 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 (e.g. severity weight), and an ERF (the product) can also be derived from another process (e.g. expert judgement). -- Anne Knol (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack) ----#1:: . I think, the processes and products should be put together and not separated too much. --Alexandra Kuhn 17:29, 14 January 2008 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment) |
Frameworks in guidebook
| Fact discussion: . |
|---|
| Opening statement:
Closing statement: Resolution not yet found. (A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.) |
| Argumentation:
⇤--#1:: . Why is cost-benefit analysis "another framework" in the guidebook? --Alexandra Kuhn 10:27, 17 January 2008 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)
|
Tools in guidebook
| Fact discussion: . |
|---|
| Opening statement:
Closing statement: Resolution not yet found. (A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.) |
| Argumentation: |
Step-specific methods
| Fact discussion: . |
|---|
| Opening statement:
Closing statement: Resolution not yet found. (A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.) |
| Argumentation:
⇤--#1:: . Step-specific information to be included in an assessment can also be obtained by other means than modeling, e.g. direct observation or measurement. Of course, if we use modeling in a very broad sense to mean all kinds of information collection and manipulation for the purpose of synthesizing it as a part of a particular assessment, the term is acceptable. Restricting the guidebook to cover only modeling methods related to specific in the way it is commonly understood would be too constrained. --Mikko Pohjola 13:01, 1 February 2008 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)
|