支持基于社区的数据基础的表面测量稳健性

IF 1.4 2区 哲学 Q1 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE
Vadim Keyser , Hannah Howland
{"title":"支持基于社区的数据基础的表面测量稳健性","authors":"Vadim Keyser ,&nbsp;Hannah Howland","doi":"10.1016/j.shpsa.2025.01.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Robustness analysis is a methodological process of identifying results that converge over a variety of independent identifications, models, measurements, or derivations. In this discussion, we focus on measurement robustness, where convergent results are obtained over different measurement methods, indicating reliable detection. Our aim is to identify a methodological problem with convergent results applicable to measurement practice in inequitable social contexts. We argue that even under ideal function of measurement robustness, there is still a deeper methodological problem about measurement choices and strategies: the ‘sacrifice of representational adequacy for generality’ (SRAG). We detail SRAG and then apply it using two case studies, where convergent measurements conceal pollution masking and pollution burden. Finally, we offer a solution to SRAG through the analysis of robust community-based data practices. By describing the community-led efforts behind Shingle Mountain and the Joppa Environmental Health Project, we illustrate how an effective cross-checking structure can correct measurement goals and strategies, thereby, promoting representational adequacy.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49467,"journal":{"name":"Studies in History and Philosophy of Science","volume":"110 ","pages":"Pages 19-29"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Bolstering superficial measurement robustness with community-based data foundations\",\"authors\":\"Vadim Keyser ,&nbsp;Hannah Howland\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.shpsa.2025.01.001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Robustness analysis is a methodological process of identifying results that converge over a variety of independent identifications, models, measurements, or derivations. In this discussion, we focus on measurement robustness, where convergent results are obtained over different measurement methods, indicating reliable detection. Our aim is to identify a methodological problem with convergent results applicable to measurement practice in inequitable social contexts. We argue that even under ideal function of measurement robustness, there is still a deeper methodological problem about measurement choices and strategies: the ‘sacrifice of representational adequacy for generality’ (SRAG). We detail SRAG and then apply it using two case studies, where convergent measurements conceal pollution masking and pollution burden. Finally, we offer a solution to SRAG through the analysis of robust community-based data practices. By describing the community-led efforts behind Shingle Mountain and the Joppa Environmental Health Project, we illustrate how an effective cross-checking structure can correct measurement goals and strategies, thereby, promoting representational adequacy.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49467,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Studies in History and Philosophy of Science\",\"volume\":\"110 \",\"pages\":\"Pages 19-29\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Studies in History and Philosophy of Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0039368125000019\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in History and Philosophy of Science","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0039368125000019","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

稳健性分析是一种识别结果的方法学过程,这些结果收敛于各种独立的识别、模型、测量或推导。在本讨论中,我们关注测量鲁棒性,在不同的测量方法中获得收敛的结果,表明可靠的检测。我们的目的是找出一个方法上的问题与收敛的结果适用于测量实践在不公平的社会背景。我们认为,即使在理想的测量稳健性函数下,关于测量选择和策略仍然存在更深层次的方法问题:“牺牲代表性充分性以获得一般性”(SRAG)。我们详细介绍了SRAG,然后使用两个案例研究来应用它,其中收敛测量掩盖了污染掩蔽和污染负担。最后,我们通过分析健壮的基于社区的数据实践,为SRAG提供了一个解决方案。通过描述Shingle Mountain和Joppa环境健康项目背后的社区主导的努力,我们说明了有效的交叉检查结构如何能够纠正测量目标和策略,从而促进代表性的充足性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Bolstering superficial measurement robustness with community-based data foundations
Robustness analysis is a methodological process of identifying results that converge over a variety of independent identifications, models, measurements, or derivations. In this discussion, we focus on measurement robustness, where convergent results are obtained over different measurement methods, indicating reliable detection. Our aim is to identify a methodological problem with convergent results applicable to measurement practice in inequitable social contexts. We argue that even under ideal function of measurement robustness, there is still a deeper methodological problem about measurement choices and strategies: the ‘sacrifice of representational adequacy for generality’ (SRAG). We detail SRAG and then apply it using two case studies, where convergent measurements conceal pollution masking and pollution burden. Finally, we offer a solution to SRAG through the analysis of robust community-based data practices. By describing the community-led efforts behind Shingle Mountain and the Joppa Environmental Health Project, we illustrate how an effective cross-checking structure can correct measurement goals and strategies, thereby, promoting representational adequacy.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Studies in History and Philosophy of Science
Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 管理科学-科学史与科学哲学
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
10.00%
发文量
166
审稿时长
6.6 weeks
期刊介绍: Studies in History and Philosophy of Science is devoted to the integrated study of the history, philosophy and sociology of the sciences. The editors encourage contributions both in the long-established areas of the history of the sciences and the philosophy of the sciences and in the topical areas of historiography of the sciences, the sciences in relation to gender, culture and society and the sciences in relation to arts. The Journal is international in scope and content and publishes papers from a wide range of countries and cultural traditions.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信