Peer review
This page is a method.
The page identifier is Op_en2734 |
|---|
| Moderator:Nobody (see all) Click here to sign up. |
|
Give your opinion to the peer rating of the content of this page. |
| Upload data
|
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."
Contents
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
| Statements:
Resolution: Resolution not yet found. (A stable resolution, when found, 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) ⇤3: The issue described in argument 2 is missing. --Jouni 11:37, 16 January 2009 (EET)
|
