Difference between revisions of "New thoughts and discussions"

From Testiwiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Objectives of pyrkilo method)
m
 
(32 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
{{hatchery|moderator=Jouni}}
 
This page is intended for sharing your latest Intarese related thoughts and discussion topics that are already worth disseminating among interested people, but that might not be ripe enough to deserve their own pages yet. Feel free to write and process your thoughts here, no matter how unorganized they may be. '''Please edit the page so that the latest thoughts and discussions come on the top of the page.'''
 
This page is intended for sharing your latest Intarese related thoughts and discussion topics that are already worth disseminating among interested people, but that might not be ripe enough to deserve their own pages yet. Feel free to write and process your thoughts here, no matter how unorganized they may be. '''Please edit the page so that the latest thoughts and discussions come on the top of the page.'''
  
−
==19.7.2006 Trying to define the objectives of pyrkilo method==
+
==New way of doing science (19.4.2007)==
  
−
Participants: Juha, Mikko, Jouni
+
Participants: Jouni
  
−
The overall methodology for environmental health risk assessment should promote (or even restrict) the examination to have several high-level properties. These, and the tools and method that help to achieve the objective, are described below. The method that we develop in KTL is called the PYRKILO method, and we suggest that this, or selected parts of it, are taken into the INTARESE method as well.
+
A new way of doing science:
 +
*A problem is formulated on a page in the Internet (the system should be open but require registration for edits)
 +
*Problem is attached with "Partners needed" sign
 +
*Anyone can participate and produce data and upload them
 +
*When finished, the result will be published in an Open Access journal (that accepts material that has already been in the Internet)
 +
*This should be tested with an idea that otherwise does not have resources and stays undone.
  
−
''Evaluating the '''desirability''' of outcomes''<br>
+
===Possible research topic for open scientific work: European-wide composite traffic===
−
There is a need to perform risk assessment only if some of the possible outcomes are more desirable than others. What is desirable and what is not, is a value judgement. These can be resolved using '''democratic''' methods such as voting.
 
  
 +
*The whole European personal (not goods) traffic should be looked at based on the composite traffic idea: trip aggregation based on information about all (most) trips.
 +
*This would include air and rail traffic, ships, cars, buses, and even walking.
 +
*The scale of the examination should cover everything between 1 and 5000 km.
 +
* I would predict that there are very large synergisms waiting out there, if travel modes could be more effectively combined.
  
−
''Describing the situation in a '''rational''' way''<br>
 
−
The assessment must be rational and inherently consistent. '''Logic''' and '''directed acyclic graphs (DAGs)''' are the tools to promote this.
 
  
  
−
''Evaluating '''relevance''' of issues''<br>
 
−
The individual pieces must be relevant for the whole assessment. This can be evaluated using '''argumentation theory'''.
 
  
 +
==Properties of a good risk assessment 29.1.2007==
  
−
''Evaluating whether the issues in the assessment are '''probable'''''<br>
+
*participants: Jouni, based on previous discussions with Mikko, Juha, and others
−
Low probability issues are less important for the assessment, and the tool to evaluate this is probability theory, especially Bayesian statistics, which offer some very nice tools when combined with DAGs. It should be noted, however, that 'low probability' is not a fixed number: the collision of a meteorite to the Earth may have a very low probability, but it may still be important due to its potential impact (see utility).
 
  
 +
===On possible solutions===
  
−
''Evaluating the '''utility''' of actions''<br>
+
'''MOTTO: There is at least one solution to every problem, and that is the truth.'''
−
The utility of the outcome is a key indicator for decision-making. According to the '''decision theory''', optimising the expected utility should be the decision criteria.
 
  
 +
This means that because the world exists, there must be at least one coherent description of the world. It is the one that most precisely describes the true nature of the affairs. In other words, if a description is incoherent with the data, it is wrong.
  
−
''Evaluating the '''importance of uncertainties'''''<br>
+
This has implications on the distribution database idea. As we are planning to build a database of all variables used in all our risk assessments, there will be an increasing number of possible conflicts between the variables. This is an optimistic idea that however complicated the truth may be, there is at least one possible way to build the distribution database. The practical problem how to find that solution may, of course, be huge. On the other hand, even if the truth is not found, it is possible to do data mining within the distribution database and locate inconsistencies. When found, these would then need more scrutiny.  
−
A '''value-of-information analysis''' is needed to estimate, whether a particular uncertainty makes it difficult to decide in a particular context.
 
  
  
  
−
Overall, the new pyrkilo method should have such a structure and process rules that it facilitates assessments that are in line with all of these six objectives.
+
===How to study risk assessment methods?===
−
* Desirability - democracy
 
−
* Rationality - logic, DAGs
 
−
* Relevance - argumentation theory
 
−
* Probability - probability theory
 
−
* Utility - decision theory
 
−
* Importance of uncertainties - value-of-information analysis
 
  
 +
What are the properties of a good risk assessment? The answer will determine the method that should be used to reach that kind of assessments and end products.
  
 +
A problem with risk assessment is that it is more like a practical work and application of existing knowledge. Can it even be a science? How risk assessment research should be performed so that it would utilise the scientific method? A suggestion:
 +
*Define a research need: A problem related to risk assessment.
 +
*The theoretical question is: Which method solves the problem?
 +
*Define a research hypothesis: An answer that might solve the problem.
 +
*The empirical reseach on the hypothesis answers this question: Does the method work out in practice?
 +
:&rarr; This approach is an alternative to the demand that there should be quantitative measures for the goodness of methods. In this alternative, the methods would then be compared with each other based on their quantitative goodness. This is a problematic approach, because if the measure is not good, the answer is useless. In our suggestion we leave open the question about which method is the best. Our research is about "does this work?", and the practical question "will someone use it?" will be left to the market. We assume that there is a market of risk assessments, where decision-makers and other endusers have a demand and the risk assessors have a supply.
  
−
'''How does the first version of the pyrkilo tool look like?'''
 
  
−
* It is a systematic collection of relevant and structured information.
+
Some possible research ideas, when the golden criteria for a risk assessment is that it brings useful information for decision-making.
−
* It does not compute anything. All computing is done with other tools, and results are uploaded to the tool.
+
* Problem: The contents of a risk assessment must be acceptable to the endusers. Hypothetical solution:
−
* It is based on Mediawiki program.
+
** Include enduser in the process, and collect views into the assessment.
−
* It is an open-access system, but for a limited group of people. In this sense, it could look much like this Intarese Wiki site.
+
** Alternative: Try to anticipate the needs without consulting the endusers.
−
* It has a prespecified structure for assessments, variables, and variable attributes.
+
* Problem: The measure of the risk of interest can take several forms. How to select among the possible ways to describe the risk?
−
* It has a prespecified categorisation systems for a) variables, b) tasks and processes.
+
** Take the endusers' predefined view as such as the basis for the assessment. E.g. if the enduser says 10<sup>-6</sup> risk is the decision criteria, focus on estimating the exposure that causes that risk.  
−
* It has procedural rules for how to link variables to each other.
+
** Alternative: describe the risk as such, without predefined decision criteria. This alternative would require the best (or, at least good enough) scientific estimate of the risk as a whole (e.g., in the given exposure situation).
−
+
* Problem: Different opinions about values and scoping emerge among the endusers. How to weight the opinions?
−
--[[User:Jouni|Jouni]] 14:23, 19 July 2006 (EEST)
+
** If an opinion was raised, it will be given a certain weight independent on who raised the point.  
 +
** Alternative: Opinions will be given weight based on both the content and on who raised the point.
  
−
==4.7.2006 thoughts after the ISSA argumentation conference==
+
----
−
 
+
The contents of the thoughts and discussions until 11.1. have already mainly been either outdated, developed further or merged with contents of other pages and have thus been archived. You can find the old texts [http://www.pyrkilo.fi/intarese/index.php?title=New_thoughts_and_discussions&oldid=5328 | here].
−
Computer aided or web-based argumentatio applications to look into:
+
[[category:Intarese]]
−
* Belvedere (?)
+
[[Category:Hatchery]]
−
* Questmap (http://www.compendiuminstitute.org/tools/questmap.htm)
 
−
* Argumentum (http://www.argumentum.ch)
 
−
* Argunet (http://www.denkartist.de/argunet)
 
−
* more?
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
Some names with potentially useful ideas/research on argumentation (pragma-dialectics, epistemology...):
 
−
* Gábor Kutrovátz, Eotvos University of of Budapest
 
−
* Ralph H. Johnson, Univeristy of Windsor
 
−
* Dan Cohen, Colby College
 
−
* Robert C. Rowland, University of Kansas
 
−
* Michel Dufour, University Sorbonne Nouvelle
 
−
* Christoph Lumer, University of Siena
 
−
* Fabio Paglieri, University of Siena
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
Co-operation potential???
 
−
* Gábor Kutrovátz, Eotvos University of of Budapest
 
−
* Sara Rubinelli, University of Lugano
 
−
* David M. Berube, University of South Carolina NanoCenter
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko]] 16:59, 4 July 2006 (EEST)
 
−
 
 
−
==21.6.2006 technical issues in using Wiki==
 
−
Mikko Pohjola
 
−
 
 
−
To make the Wiki working environment clear, useful and effective we must agree on certain kind of code of conduct and build the system in a way that it guides the users to right kinds of action in using it. In brief it is a question of:
 
−
*effective design of the system
 
−
*good user guidance to
 
−
**the technical questions
 
−
**use of the method
 
−
*(minimal) control of the system
 
−
 
 
−
The first bullet, design, actually includes the second bullet, because the guidance is given in/by the system. Also the ways to minimize the need of control are in the design of the system. Since the environment is fixed in using Wiki, the design then means (a) how to make best use of the existing properties of Wiki (b) for the needs of environmental health risk assessment. Therefore the design is first methodological and second technical.
 
−
 
 
−
The methodology is now starting to take shape ([[Help:Writing pyrkilo risk assessments]]) in a way that it is about the time to take the technical issues into more detailed scrutiny. Open questions concerning this that require consideration in near future are at least e.g.:
 
−
*use of categories to group the pages
 
−
**operational environment -related
 
−
**substantially relevant
 
−
** managerial (project management etc.)???
 
−
*use of templates to "standardize" the appearance
 
−
**attribute tables
 
−
**pre-framed pages
 
−
**sharing content
 
−
*control of hierarchy???
 
−
*user guidance
 
−
**technical
 
−
**methodological
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
==1.6.2006 On argumentation analysis for risk assessment==
 
−
 
 
−
Participants: Jouni & Mikko
 
−
 
 
−
*the role of argumentation analysis in risk assessment is to fill the gap between explicit modelling/calculation and unstructured discussion
 
−
**helps e.g. in making complicated models easier to intrepret by non-experts and brings out the essentials of a discourse
 
−
*the primary goal concerning argumentation analysis' utilization for risk assessment is to make it a common, easy-to-use, a priori method for risk assessors <br>
 
−
*also use of argumentation theory as an a posteriori method for reconstructing discourses afterwards can be fruitful
 
−
**this line of use is probably necessary in explicating the usefulness of the method<br>
 
−
*discussion in Science about health risks/benefits of salmon shall be made an example for using argumentation analysis in risk assessment
 
−
*in this example the assessor (as an "outsider") chooses the focus and scope of the argumentation analysis
 
−
**if the basic standpoint of the analysis, and thus the point of view, is chosen solely based on the first article by Hites et al., it would be difficult to fit all the replies in the same picture (the disagreement space varies in settings Hites vs. Rembold, Hites vs. Tuomisto, etc...)
 

Latest revision as of 16:30, 10 January 2010

This page is intended for sharing your latest Intarese related thoughts and discussion topics that are already worth disseminating among interested people, but that might not be ripe enough to deserve their own pages yet. Feel free to write and process your thoughts here, no matter how unorganized they may be. Please edit the page so that the latest thoughts and discussions come on the top of the page.

New way of doing science (19.4.2007)

Participants: Jouni

A new way of doing science:

  • A problem is formulated on a page in the Internet (the system should be open but require registration for edits)
  • Problem is attached with "Partners needed" sign
  • Anyone can participate and produce data and upload them
  • When finished, the result will be published in an Open Access journal (that accepts material that has already been in the Internet)
  • This should be tested with an idea that otherwise does not have resources and stays undone.

Possible research topic for open scientific work: European-wide composite traffic

  • The whole European personal (not goods) traffic should be looked at based on the composite traffic idea: trip aggregation based on information about all (most) trips.
  • This would include air and rail traffic, ships, cars, buses, and even walking.
  • The scale of the examination should cover everything between 1 and 5000 km.
  • I would predict that there are very large synergisms waiting out there, if travel modes could be more effectively combined.



Properties of a good risk assessment 29.1.2007

  • participants: Jouni, based on previous discussions with Mikko, Juha, and others

On possible solutions

MOTTO: There is at least one solution to every problem, and that is the truth.

This means that because the world exists, there must be at least one coherent description of the world. It is the one that most precisely describes the true nature of the affairs. In other words, if a description is incoherent with the data, it is wrong.

This has implications on the distribution database idea. As we are planning to build a database of all variables used in all our risk assessments, there will be an increasing number of possible conflicts between the variables. This is an optimistic idea that however complicated the truth may be, there is at least one possible way to build the distribution database. The practical problem how to find that solution may, of course, be huge. On the other hand, even if the truth is not found, it is possible to do data mining within the distribution database and locate inconsistencies. When found, these would then need more scrutiny.


How to study risk assessment methods?

What are the properties of a good risk assessment? The answer will determine the method that should be used to reach that kind of assessments and end products.

A problem with risk assessment is that it is more like a practical work and application of existing knowledge. Can it even be a science? How risk assessment research should be performed so that it would utilise the scientific method? A suggestion:

  • Define a research need: A problem related to risk assessment.
  • The theoretical question is: Which method solves the problem?
  • Define a research hypothesis: An answer that might solve the problem.
  • The empirical reseach on the hypothesis answers this question: Does the method work out in practice?
→ This approach is an alternative to the demand that there should be quantitative measures for the goodness of methods. In this alternative, the methods would then be compared with each other based on their quantitative goodness. This is a problematic approach, because if the measure is not good, the answer is useless. In our suggestion we leave open the question about which method is the best. Our research is about "does this work?", and the practical question "will someone use it?" will be left to the market. We assume that there is a market of risk assessments, where decision-makers and other endusers have a demand and the risk assessors have a supply.


Some possible research ideas, when the golden criteria for a risk assessment is that it brings useful information for decision-making.

  • Problem: The contents of a risk assessment must be acceptable to the endusers. Hypothetical solution:
    • Include enduser in the process, and collect views into the assessment.
    • Alternative: Try to anticipate the needs without consulting the endusers.
  • Problem: The measure of the risk of interest can take several forms. How to select among the possible ways to describe the risk?
    • Take the endusers' predefined view as such as the basis for the assessment. E.g. if the enduser says 10-6 risk is the decision criteria, focus on estimating the exposure that causes that risk.
    • Alternative: describe the risk as such, without predefined decision criteria. This alternative would require the best (or, at least good enough) scientific estimate of the risk as a whole (e.g., in the given exposure situation).
  • Problem: Different opinions about values and scoping emerge among the endusers. How to weight the opinions?
    • If an opinion was raised, it will be given a certain weight independent on who raised the point.
    • Alternative: Opinions will be given weight based on both the content and on who raised the point.

The contents of the thoughts and discussions until 11.1. have already mainly been either outdated, developed further or merged with contents of other pages and have thus been archived. You can find the old texts | here.

Retrieved from "http://www.opasnet.org/testiwiki/index.php?title=New_thoughts_and_discussions&oldid=14307"