| Wednesday, January 20, 2016 @ 12:00 pm EST — Wednesday, January 20, 2016 @ 12:30 pm EST | ||||
| https://hangouts.google.com/call/rcr7qez2ttvf4bjvzfs6tq6ssaa | ||||
| Kam Dahlquist | ||||
| V Grimm, U Berger, D L DeAngelis, J G Polhill, (2010), "The ODD protocol: A review and first update", Ecological Modelling, 221, 23: pg: 2760--2768, (DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2010.08.019). The ‘ODD’ (Overview, Design concepts, and Details) protocol was published in 2006 to standardize the published descriptions of individual-based and agent-based models (ABMs). The primary objectives of ODD are to make model descriptions more understandable and complete, thereby making ABMs less subject to criticism for being irreproducible. We have systematically evaluated existing uses of the ODD protocol and identified, as expected, parts of ODD needing improvement and clarification. Accordingly, we revise the definition of ODD to clarify aspects of the original version and thereby facilitate future standardization of ABM descriptions. We discuss frequently raised critiques in ODD but also two emerging, and unanticipated, benefits: ODD improves the rigorous formulation of models and helps make the theoretical foundations of large models more visible. Although the protocol was designed for ABMs, it can help with documenting any large, complex model, alleviating some general objections against such models. Volker Grimm, Jacqueline Augusiak, Andreas Focks, Béatrice M Frank, Faten Gabsi, Alice S A Johnston, Chun Liu, Benjamin T Martin, Mattia Meli, Viktoriia Radchuk, Pernille Thorbek, Steven F Railsback, (2014), "Towards better modelling and decision support: Documenting model development, testing, and analysis using TRACE", Population Models for Ecological Risk Assessment of Chemicals, 280: pg: 129--139, May, (DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2014.01.018). The potential of ecological models for supporting environmental decision making is increasingly acknowledged. However, it often remains unclear whether a model is realistic and reliable enough. Good practice for developing and testing ecological models has not yet been established. Therefore, TRACE, a general framework for documenting a model's rationale, design, and testing was recently suggested. Originally TRACE was aimed at documenting good modelling practice. However, the word `documentation' does not convey TRACE's urgency. Therefore, we re-define TRACE as a tool for planning, performing, and documenting good modelling practice. TRACE documents should provide convincing evidence that a model was thoughtfully designed, correctly implemented, thoroughly tested, well understood, and appropriately used for its intended purpose. TRACE documents link the science underlying a model to its application, thereby also linking modellers and model users, for example stakeholders, decision makers, and developers of policies. We report on first experiences in producing TRACE documents. We found that the original idea underlying TRACE was valid, but to make its use more coherent and efficient, an update of its structure and more specific guidance for its use are needed. The updated TRACE format follows the recently developed framework of model `evaludation': the entire process of establishing model quality and credibility throughout all stages of model development, analysis, and application. TRACE thus becomes a tool for planning, documenting, and assessing model evaludation, which includes understanding the rationale behind a model and its envisaged use. We introduce the new structure and revised terminology of TRACE and provide examples. |
||||
| Export to My Calendar (ics) | ||||