Collaborative knowledge acquisition

Liou, Yi-Hwa

doi:10.1016/0957-4174(92)90089-b

Cited by 37 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Such a centralized review may reduce or eliminate the effects of individual variations, and it may also identify possible omissions from the knowledge base entry under review. Other methods, such as the Delphi technique [14], might also be appropriate for multi-author situations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating Consensus Among Physicians in Medical Knowledge Base Construction

Giuse¹,

MMer²,

Bankowitz³

et al. 1993

Methods Inf Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:This study evaluates inter-author variability in knowledge base construction. Seven board-certified internists independently profiled “acute perinephric abscess”, using as reference material a set of 109 peer-reviewed articles. Each participant created a list of findings associated with the disease, estimated the predictive value and sensitivity of each finding, and assessed the pertinence of each article for making each judgment. Agreement in finding selection was significantly different from chance: seven, six, and five participants selected the same finding 78.6, 9.8, and 1.6 times more often than predicted by chance. Findings with the highest sensitivity were most likely to be included by all participants. The selection of supporting evidence from the medical literature was significantly related to each physician’s agreement with the majority. The study shows that, with appropriate guidance, physicians can reproducibly extract information from the medical literature, and thus established a foundation for multi-author knowledge base construction.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating Consensus Among Physicians in Medical Knowledge Base Construction

Giuse¹,

MMer²,

Bankowitz³

et al. 1993

Methods Inf Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We are not sure that the number of requirements or session productivity really expresses elicitation technique efficiency. Another aspect of this research requiring improvement in future research is the adequacy [55,56] group, come up with ideas, deliberatively and in no particular order, which are not immediately assessed Informants come up with ideas [57,58] that are formally voted on for prioritization Semi-structured group [59,60] interviews encouraging open discussion in the presence of the elicitor Feedback of responses to a [61,62] questionnaire with the aim of outputting an outcome representative of group opinion…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Systematizing requirements elicitation technique selection

Carrizo

Dieste

Juristo

2014

Information and Software Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context: This research deals with requirements elicitation technique selection for software product requirements and the overselection of open interviews. Objectives: This paper proposes and validates a framework to help requirements engineers select the most adequate elicitation techniques at any time. Method: We have explored both the existing underlying theory and the results of empirical research to build the framework. Based on this, we have deduced and put together justified proposals about the framework components. We have also had to add information not found in theoretical or empirical sources. In these cases, we drew on our own experience and expertise. Results: A new validated approach for requirements technique selection. This new approach selects tech-niques other than open interview, offers a wider range of possible techniques and captures more require-ments information. Conclusions: The framework is easily extensible and changeable. Whenever any theoretical or empirical evidence for an attribute, technique or adequacy value is unearthed, the information can be easily added to the framework.

show abstract

“…These diagrams consist of boxes and arrows showing relevance and influence among variables and can be used for guiding and testing the influence of management activities on desertification condition. We applied a process similar to Delphi method for this purpose (Clark, Applegate, Niles, & Dobkin, 2006;Liou, 1992). We conducted a comprehensive review of the literature (Aalders et al, 2011;Abbasi-Jandani & Malekinejad, 2012;Ekhtesasi & Ahmadi, 1995;Ekhtesasi & Sepehr, 2009;Jafari & Bakhshandehmehr, 2016;Khanamani et al, 2017;Yang, Abbaspour, & Zhang, 2002) and held meetings with an agrologist and a hydrologist to identify factors affecting soil quality, groundwater index, and wind erosion rate.…”

Section: Development Of Bn Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating the potential of Bayesian networks for desertification assessment in arid areas of Iran

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Spatiotemporal complexities increase the uncertainty of the results of various desertification assessment models. We integrated the Mediterranean desertification and land‐use (MEDALUS) model with Bayesian networks (BNs) to develop a novel method for desertification assessment in central Iran. We first derived the current desertification status of the study area from empirical observations of actual, current desertification conditions and mapped the obtained status based on the criteria of the MEDALUS model. We then utilized BNs to produce three separate causal models for the soil, groundwater, and wind erosion indicators of the MEDALUS model. We then integrated all the related indicators and indices into a desertification assessment BNs model. After the reevaluation and sensitivity analysis of the model, we compared its results with those of the MEDALUS model. The obtained results highlighted soil condition and wind erosion as the main determinants of desertification in the study area. Considering the ability of BNs to accommodate uncertainty in the assessment process, these models can assist relevant authorities in making informed decisions. They can also be applied as decision support tools for adaptive management in fragile ecosystems of arid areas.

show abstract

Collaborative knowledge acquisition

Cited by 37 publications

References 20 publications

Evaluating Consensus Among Physicians in Medical Knowledge Base Construction

Evaluating Consensus Among Physicians in Medical Knowledge Base Construction

Systematizing requirements elicitation technique selection

Evaluating the potential of Bayesian networks for desertification assessment in arid areas of Iran

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About