Päätösanalyysi vuorovaikutteisen suunnittelun tukena - Tapaustarkastelussa Koitereen säännöstelyn monitavoitteinen kehittäminen
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This thesis was done as a part of the development of the regulation of the Lake Koitere project. Starting point for this study was the positive experiences of applying decision analysis tools in regulation development projects in Finland and Canada. An approach, that combines the useful tools from both countries, was developed using these experiences as a foundation. The tools were applied to support the collaborative planning process and to improve the quality of the project. The goal of the study was to examine both the applicability of the decision analysis tools in collaborative planning and the applicability of the approach. The tools were applied in the work of the steering group of the development project. Value Focused Thinking was applied in a decision analysis work shop, in which the objectives of the different stakeholders were analysed and structured. REGAIM -model was applied in the personal decision analysis interviews. With REGAIM -model target regulations was created for the steering group members. The target regulations were used to create regulation alternatives and the impacts of the alternatives was discussed in the steering group. Next the conflicting objectives, that emerged, were compared in a trade-off analysis. At the end, through a few suggestions, a consensus solution between different stakeholders for the recommendations for the regulation practice was found. The decision analytic approach that was applied in the development of the regulation of the Lake Koitere was found useful. Both the feedback from the different tools and the answers from the enquiries pointed out, that the steering group of the project felt that the applied tools were useful for the whole process and for the outcome of the process. The approach helped in the reconciliation of the conflicting objectives of the different stakeholders. It also contributed to the consensus process where the confrontation between the stakeholders was remarkable in the beginning. Decision analysis tools can be applied in all kinds problem and they can be exploited in every planning process. Because of this, decision analysis tools and the approach that was developed in the development of the Lake Koitere can be put to use also in other environmental planning processes. Nevertheless, the tools that were applied in the approach should not be followed strictly. It is always important to think what tool responds to the needs of the particular planning process at hand.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,007 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,015 | 0,004 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».