Open Assessment In Metal Risks

National Public Health Institute, Finlandww

w.kt

l.fi

1

http://en.opasnet.org

Open assessment and metal risks

Jouni TuomistoKTL, Finland


w.kt

l.fi

2


Yleismalli-wiki


w.kt

l.fi

3


Assessment page: diagram


w.kt

l.fi

4


Assessment page: variables


w.kt

l.fi

5


Module


w.kt

l.fi

6


General model of metal risks


w.kt

l.fi

7


Analytica variable and Wiki link


w.kt

l.fi

8


Variable: scope


w.kt

l.fi

9


Variable: definition


w.kt

l.fi

10


Variable: result


w.kt

l.fi

11


The attributes of a variable• Name (an identifier)• Scope (research question and boundaries)• Definition

– Data (relevant information)– Causality (dependencies)– Unit– Formula (how to compute based on the above)

• Result (what is the current estimate/answer to the research question?)


w.kt

l.fi

13


Connections between variable attributes


w.kt

l.fi

14


Parts of an attribute• Actual content: what is known• Narrative description: any explanations or

background information that is useful to understand the actual content

• Discussion: (formal) discussions about the actual content


w.kt

l.fi

15


What is the acceptability of the idea of open assessment?

• Poll (informal, based on observations of several audiences): – 30 % think it is a stupid idea– 50 % think it cannot work– 15 % find it interesting, but…– 5 % are fond of the idea

• In which category do you fall in?


w.kt

l.fi

16


Interfaces between tools• Opasnet: Open website for any assessment-related

descriptions (en.opasnet.org, fi.opasnet.org)• Erac website: A project website for Finmerac material (to

be extended to other projects)• Analytica: modelling software (Monte Carlo, causal

diagrams and models. www.lumina.com)– Models uploaded to Opasnet– Computing in Analytica, descriptions in Opasnet.

• Result base: Interpreted results in a model-friendly format (www.pyrkilo.fi/resultdb, soon base.opasnet.org)

• M-files: For original and processed data (FMS)


w.kt

l.fi

17


Lessons learnt• Finmerac was not originally planned as an open

assessment. This caused confusion when the way of working changed during project.

• Researchers not experienced in OA or wiki – reluctance to use.

• Difficulties in finding the role and place of own work.– The role was only found when the assessment

structure became clear enough


w.kt

l.fi

18


End


w.kt

l.fi

19


What are the challenges of the current risk assessment?

• Limited area of application• Lack of flexibility and breadth• Inefficiency and slowliness of the process• Deliberate biases towards "safety"• Communication problems• Lack of acceptability among stakeholders


w.kt

l.fi

20


What is needed from the new assessment?

Stakeholders must have a say on everything in advanceValue judgements included in the assessment

Lack of acceptability among stakeholders

Everything available for clarification questionsCommunication problems

Best estimates (incl uncertainty) usedDeliberate biases towards "safety"

Info structured & directly reusableDelegation, non-experts includedRoutines automated

Inefficiency and slowliness of the process

Fully scalable to very simple and very complex questions

Lack of flexibility and breadth

Adoptable by any area of administration or policy-making

Limited area of application


w.kt

l.fi

21


Paradigm shift• Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996)• Science progresses in a regular

way until too many faults are identified in the current paradigm. Then, there is a period of extraordinary science, which leads into a shift of paradigm


w.kt

l.fi

22


Open assessment• The objectives:

– Find solutions to ALL the challenges at the same time– Systematize and "industrialize" the risk assessment– Maintain high scientific quality

• The current situation with open assessment: there are suggested methods to all challenges listed previously– Many of the suggestions have not been tested in practice– Not everything will probably work

• However, there is already a critical mass of solutions available so that full-scale testing can be started

• Further problems should be solved as they appear


w.kt

l.fi

23


Assessments in practice• They look like Wikipedia articles• They are written in much the same way• Substance is on the main page

– Research question– Definition: how to find an answer– Result

• Discussion about the substance is on a separate discussion page– Discussion can be free or structured


w.kt

l.fi

24


Open assessment• The research question for the (pyrkilo) method:

– "How can scientific information and value judgements be organised for societal decision-making in such a way that open participation is possible?"

• Full range of development– a new ontological foundation– strictly object-oriented approach– a new structure for information objects– traditional RA methods for processing information, but

organised in a more systematic way– tools that enable open collaboration– data sources that are directly available and applicable


w.kt

l.fi

25


Highlights of the theory behind• The basic principles are

– Open participation at all phases of the assessment– Requirement of scientific method (openness to scientific

critique) at all phases– Reusability of information from one assessment to another

• A uniform information structure is used:– Assessment: specific information need for a policy decision– Variable: a truthful description of a particular part of reality; it is

independent of assessments given its scope.– Both objects have 4 attributes: name, scope (research

question), definition (how to answer), and result


w.kt

l.fi

26


Assessments are performed openly in the Internet

• Parts needed to run open assessments– Web pages with method descriptions for the

assessors (Guidebook)– Web pages about useful data (Resource Centre)– Web pages about actual assessments

• Descriptions of assessments and models used (Warehouse)• Actual models (Toolbox)• Results of assessments in a uniform structure (Result

database)– Web pages for collaborative work on assessments

(Collaborative workspace)Red parts are officially parts of the Intarese project


w.kt

l.fi

27


Quality control• Is quality control possible if pages are available for

all to contribute?• Our first thoughts (no experience yet, because

work is practically within research projects)– Pages can be freely added and edited– Advanced pages are protected from direct edits

• Then, the edits are made through an open discussion on a separate page; results are transferred to the actual page

– Very important pages go through a peer review and get a quality label


w.kt

l.fi

28


The ORA report


w.kt

l.fi

29


Falsification• Karl Popper (1902-1994)• Science consists of statements

(theories) that can be falsified• Science is an evolutionary

process where poor theories are falsified

• The current knowledge consists of those theories that have not (yet) been falsified


w.kt

l.fi

30


Argumentation• Frans van Eemeren• Disputes can be solved by using

formal argumentation that consists of attacks and defends of specified statements


w.kt

l.fi

31


Mass collaboration• Don Tapscott, Anthony Williams• A large group of unorganised

people are able to produce complex artefacts, if the product is information or culture, the work can be chopped into bite-size pieces, and the pieces can be effectively synthesised.


w.kt

l.fi

32


Summary• The purpose of open assessment is to improve

and make more efficient the use of scientific information

• The basic principles are– Open participation at all phases of the assessment– Requirement of scientific method (openness to

scientific critique) at all phases– Reusability of information from one assessment to

another• Researchers are needed to test the ideas of open

assessment• If successful, scientific practices may change

Open Assessment In Metal Risks

Education

Transcript of Open Assessment In Metal Risks