期刊
RELIABILITY ENGINEERING & SYSTEM SAFETY
卷 96, 期 10, 页码 1257-1262出版社
ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ress.2011.05.001
关键词
Uncertainty; Elicitation; Epistemic; Risk assessment; Experts
资金
- Research Council of Norway
- NSF [1031046, 0968711]
- Directorate For Engineering
- Div Of Civil, Mechanical, & Manufact Inn [0968711] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
- Div Of Civil, Mechanical, & Manufact Inn
- Directorate For Engineering [1031046] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
It is often said that the aim of risk assessment is to faithfully represent and report the knowledge of some defined experts in the field studied. The analysts' job is to elicit this knowledge, synthesise it and report the results as integrated uncertainty assessments, for example, expressed through a set of probability distributions. Analysts' judgements beyond these tasks should not be incorporated in the uncertainty assessments (distributions). The purpose of the present paper is to discuss the rationale of this perspective. To conduct a risk assessment in practice the analysts need to make a number of judgements related to, for example, the choice of methods and models that to a large extent influence the results. And often the analysts are the real experts on many of the issues addressed in the assessments, in particular, when it comes to understanding how various phenomena and processes interact. Would it then not be more appropriate to fully acknowledge the role of the analysts as uncertainty assessors and probability assigners, and see the results of the risk assessments as their judgements based on input from the experts? The discussion is illustrated by two examples. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
作者
我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。
推荐
暂无数据