Can you comment on why you chose not to release the quantitative model and calculations that you used to derive these conclusions? As detailed as this work is, I don’t feel comfortable updating my views based on calculations I can’t see for myself.
As you point out in the post, I imagine there is huge variability based on various guesstimates (as there should be!). To me at least, the most valuable part of this work lies in the model and the better understanding we get from attempting to make models, rather than the conclusions of the model.
Mathias, I’m happy to share the full spreadsheet with you or anyone else on request—just PM me for the link. In addition, anyone can see the basic structure of the model as well as two examples of working through it in our previous piece introducing the framework we used.
Making the model public opens up the possibility of it being shared without the context offered in this article, and I’m hesitant to do that before we have an opportunity to document it much more fully. My hope is that we’ll be able to do that for the next iteration.
EDIT: I’ve decided to just let people see it for themselves since the interest in this is stronger than I thought it would be.
I’d emphasize that there’s a lot of information in the article that doesn’t rely on the model at all—e.g., the expert survey results, the details about specific institutions, etc. So I don’t think whether you trust the numbers or not is all that big of a crux.
Since the model can’t yet be shared publicly, it would be valuable, I think, to have an external person from the community with experience evaluating projects (e.g. Nuño Sempere) take a closer look at it and share their impressions.
Can you comment on why you chose not to release the quantitative model and calculations that you used to derive these conclusions? As detailed as this work is, I don’t feel comfortable updating my views based on calculations I can’t see for myself.
As you point out in the post, I imagine there is huge variability based on various guesstimates (as there should be!). To me at least, the most valuable part of this work lies in the model and the better understanding we get from attempting to make models, rather than the conclusions of the model.
Mathias, I’m happy to share the full spreadsheet with you or anyone else on request—just PM me for the link. In addition, anyone can see the basic structure of the model as well as two examples of working through it in ourprevious pieceintroducing the framework we used.Making the model public opens up the possibility of it being shared without the context offered in this article, and I’m hesitant to do that before we have an opportunity to document it much more fully. My hope is that we’ll be able to do that for the next iteration.EDIT: I’ve decided to just let people see it for themselves since the interest in this is stronger than I thought it would be.
I’d emphasize that there’s a lot of information in the article that doesn’t rely on the model at all—e.g., the expert survey results, the details about specific institutions, etc. So I don’t think whether you trust the numbers or not is all that big of a crux.
Since the model can’t yet be shared publicly, it would be valuable, I think, to have an external person from the community with experience evaluating projects (e.g. Nuño Sempere) take a closer look at it and share their impressions.
Is there any way you would have felt more comfortable releasing the model? Say if the EAIF supported it, or if it was visible to logged in users only?