Joseph Holler's Open GIScience Curriculum at Middlebury College
Oct-12 : In this lesson, we will analyze designs of multicriteria evaluation models and their uncertainty.
Tate, E. 2013. Uncertainty Analysis for a Social Vulnerability Index. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 103 (3):526–543. DOI:10.1080/00045608.2012.700616.
Use this handout to guide your reading and your analysis of Malcomb et al (2014) in relation to Tate’s (2013) framework.
In our discussion, we will critique the Malcomb et al (2014) study using the framework of Tate (2013) and our reproduction study, including any results, data, metadata, and pre-analysis plan in the reproduction study.
There are many sources of error, uncertainty, and irreproducibility in the original study. We will review the overall research design of Malcomb et al in terms of Tate’s framework and focus on what you think are the more important problems with the study.
If you missed posting a blog on October 10, you may instead post one in advance of this discussion.
This type of work is starting to get heated, with critical articles & responses in the Annals of the American Association of Geographers:
Rufat, S., E. Tate, C. T. Emrich, and F. Antolini. 2019. How Valid Are Social Vulnerability Models? Annals of the American Association of Geographers 109 (4):1131–1153. DOI:10.1080/24694452.2018.1535887.
Flanagan, B., E. Hallisey, J. D. Sharpe, C. E. Mertzlufft, and M. Grossman. 2020. On the Validity of Validation: A Commentary on Rufat, Tate, Emrich, and Antolini’s “How Valid Are Social Vulnerability Models?” Annals of the American Association of Geographers 0 (0):1–6. DOI:10.1080/24694452.2020.1857220.
Rufat, S., E. Tate, C. T. Emrich, and F. Antolini. 2020. Answer to the CDC: Validation Must Precede Promotion. Annals of the American Association of Geographers 0 (0):1–3. DOI: 10.1080/24694452.2020.1857221.