[1] Forbes, V., and P. Calow. 2002. Applying weight of evidence in retrospective ecological risk assessment when quantitative data are limited. Human Ecol Risk Assess 8: 1625-39
Access: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/20028091057529#.U8RR6_ldXzg
This paper was a great introduction to weight of evidence. It was specifically focusing on ecological risk assessment, especially when quantitative data was limited. However, I felt that the models used, especially the one on page 1630, where incredibly useful in other fields.
[2] Smith, E. P., I. Lipkovich, and K. Ye. 2002. Weight-of-evidence (WOE): quantitative estimation of probability of impairment for individual and multiple lines of evidence. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 8:1585–1596.
Access: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/20028091057493#.U8RTzPldXzg
This paper presented a way to combine multiple evidence pieces through weight-of-evidence calculations to find the probability of impairment. This paper focuses on using this methodology for ecological studies. While I like how multiple pieces come together to make a nice statistic, I felt that this was not very relevant to my interests.
[3] Goodman, J. K., Cryder, C. E., & Cheema, A. (2012). Data Collection in a Flat World: The Strengths and Weaknesses of Mechanical Turk Samples. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making.
This paper looked at the strengths and weaknesses of using Mechanical Turk to do research. This is a must read for anyone considering using MTurk for research. The paper is well put-together and brings up specific serious concerns.
Access: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/20028091057529#.U8RR6_ldXzg
This paper was a great introduction to weight of evidence. It was specifically focusing on ecological risk assessment, especially when quantitative data was limited. However, I felt that the models used, especially the one on page 1630, where incredibly useful in other fields.
[2] Smith, E. P., I. Lipkovich, and K. Ye. 2002. Weight-of-evidence (WOE): quantitative estimation of probability of impairment for individual and multiple lines of evidence. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 8:1585–1596.
Access: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/20028091057493#.U8RTzPldXzg
This paper presented a way to combine multiple evidence pieces through weight-of-evidence calculations to find the probability of impairment. This paper focuses on using this methodology for ecological studies. While I like how multiple pieces come together to make a nice statistic, I felt that this was not very relevant to my interests.
[3] Goodman, J. K., Cryder, C. E., & Cheema, A. (2012). Data Collection in a Flat World: The Strengths and Weaknesses of Mechanical Turk Samples. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making.
This paper looked at the strengths and weaknesses of using Mechanical Turk to do research. This is a must read for anyone considering using MTurk for research. The paper is well put-together and brings up specific serious concerns.