How useful is expert opinion for predicting the distribution of a species within and beyond the region of expertise? A case study using brush-tailed rock-wallabiesPetrogale penicillata

1. Species' distribution modelling relies on adequate data sets to build reliable statistical models with high predictive ability. However, the money spent collecting empirical data might be better spent on management. A less expensive source of species' distribution information is expert opinion. This study evaluates expert knowledge and its source. In particular, we determine whether models built on expert knowledge apply over multiple regions or only within the region where the knowledge was derived. 2. The case study focuses on the distribution of the brush-tailed rock-wallaby Petrogale penicillata in eastern Australia. We brought together from two biogeographically different regions substantial and well-designed field data and knowledge from nine experts. We used a novel elicitation tool within a geographical information system to systematically collect expert opinions. The tool utilized an indirect approach to elicitation, asking experts simpler questions about observable rather than abstract quantities, with measures in place to identify uncertainty and offer feedback. Bayesian analysis was used to combine field data and expert knowledge in each region to determine: (i) how expert opinion affected models based on field data and (ii) how similar expert-informed models were within regions and across regions. 3. The elicitation tool effectively captured the experts' opinions and their uncertainties. Experts were comfortable with the map-based elicitation approach used, especially with graphical feedback. Experts tended to predict lower values of species occurrence compared with field data. 4. Across experts, consensus on effect sizes occurred for several habitat variables. Expert opinion generally influenced predictions from field data. However, south-east Queensland and north-east New South Wales experts had different opinions on the influence of elevation and geology, with these differences attributable to geological differences between these regions. 5. Synthesis and applications. When formulated as priors in Bayesian analysis, expert opinion is useful for modifying or strengthening patterns exhibited by empirical data sets that are limited in size or scope. Nevertheless, the ability of an expert to extrapolate beyond their region of knowledge may be poor. Hence there is significant merit in obtaining information from local experts when compiling species' distribution models across several regions.

Elicitator : an expert elicitation tool for regression in ecology

Expert elicitation is the process of retrieving and quantifying expert knowledge in a particular domain. Such information is of particular value when the empirical data is expensive, limited, or unreliable. This paper describes a new software tool, called Elicitator, which assists in quantifying expert knowledge in a form suitable for use as a prior model in Bayesian regression. Potential environmental domains for applying this elicitation tool include habitat modeling, assessing detectability or eradication, ecological condition assessments, risk analysis, and quantifying inputs to complex models of ecological processes. The tool has been developed to be user-friendly, extensible, and facilitate consistent and repeatable elicitation of expert knowledge across these various domains. We demonstrate its application to elicitation for logistic regression in a geographically based ecological context. The underlying statistical methodology is also novel, utilizing an indirect elicitation approach to target expert knowledge on a case-by-case basis. For several elicitation sites (or cases), experts are asked simply to quantify their estimated ecological response (e.g. probability of presence), and its range of plausible values, after inspecting (habitat) covariates via GIS.

Comparison of three expert elicitation methods for logistic regression on predicting the presence of the threatened brush-tailed rock-wallaby petrogale penicillata

Numerous expert elicitation methods have been suggested for generalised linear models (GLMs). This paper compares three relatively new approaches to eliciting expert knowledge in a form suitable for Bayesian logistic regression. These methods were trialled on two experts in order to model the habitat suitability of the threatened Australian brush-tailed rock-wallaby (Petrogale penicillata). The first elicitation approach is a geographically assisted indirect predictive method with a geographic information system (GIS) interface. The second approach is a predictive indirect method which uses an interactive graphical tool. The third method uses a questionnaire to elicit expert knowledge directly about the impact of a habitat variable on the response. Two variables (slope and aspect) are used to examine prior and posterior distributions of the three methods. The results indicate that there are some similarities and dissimilarities between the expert informed priors of the two experts formulated from the different approaches. The choice of elicitation method depends on the statistical knowledge of the expert, their mapping skills, time constraints, accessibility to experts and funding available. This trial reveals that expert knowledge can be important when modelling rare event data, such as threatened species, because experts can provide additional information that may not be represented in the dataset. However care must be taken with the way in which this information is elicited and formulated.

Expert performance in sport and the dynamics of talent development

Research on expertise, talent identification and development has tended to be mono-disciplinary, typically adopting adopting neurogenetic deterministic or environmentalist positions, with an over-riding focus on operational issues. In this paper the validity of dualist positions on sport expertise is evaluated. It is argued that, to advance understanding of expertise and talent development, a shift towards a multi-disciplinary and integrative science focus is necessary, along with the development of a comprehensive multi-disciplinary theoretical rationale. Here we elucidate dynamical systems theory as a multi-disciplinary theoretical rationale for capturing how multiple interacting constraints can shape the development of expert performers. This approach suggests that talent development programmes should eschew the notion of common optimal performance models, emphasise the individual nature of pathways to expertise, and identify the range of interacting constraints that impinge on performance potential of individual athletes, rather than evaluating current performance on physical tests referenced to group norms.

The impact of distributional preferences on (experimental) markets for expert services

Theory predicts that efficiency prevails on credence goods markets if customers are able to verify which quality they receive from an expert seller. In a series of experiments with endogenous prices we observe that verifiability fails to result in efficient provision behaviour and leads to very similar results as a setting without verifiability. Some sellers always provide appropriate treatment even if own money maximization calls for over- or undertreatment. Overall our endogenous-price-results suggests that both inequality aversion and a taste for efficiency play an important role for experts’ provision behaviour. We contrast the implications of those two motivations theoretically and discriminate between them empirically using a fixed-price design. We then classify experimental experts according to their provision behaviour.

Developing a hybrid expert system program to aid in the design of plastic injection molding process

Experts in injection molding often refer to previous solutions to find a mold design similar to the current mold and use previous successful molding process parameters with intuitive adjustment and modification as a start for the new molding application. This approach saves a substantial amount of time and cost in experimental based corrective actions which are required in order to reach optimum molding conditions. A Case-Based Reasoning (CBR) System can perform the same task by retrieving a similar case which is applied to the new case from the case library and uses the modification rules to adapt a solution to the new case. Therefore, a CBR System can simulate human e~pertise in injection molding process design. This research is aimed at developing an interactive Hybrid Expert System to reduce expert dependency needed on the production floor. The Hybrid Expert System (HES) is comprised of CBR, flow analysis, post-processor and trouble shooting systems. The HES can provide the first set of operating parameters in order to achieve moldability condition and producing moldings free of stress cracks and warpage. In this work C++ programming language is used to implement the expert system. The Case-Based Reasoning sub-system is constructed to derive the optimum magnitude of process parameters in the cavity. Toward this end the Flow Analysis sub-system is employed to calculate the pressure drop and temperature difference in the feed system to determine the required magnitude of parameters at the nozzle. The Post-Processor is implemented to convert the molding parameters to machine setting parameters. The parameters designed by HES are implemented using the injection molding machine. In the presence of any molding defect, a trouble shooting subsystem can determine which combination of process parameters must be changed iii during the process to deal with possible variations. Constraints in relation to the application of this HES are as follows. - flow length (L) constraint: 40 mm < L < I 00 mm, - flow thickness (Th) constraint: -flow type: - material types: I mm < Th < 4 mm, unidirectional flow, High Impact Polystyrene (HIPS) and Acrylic. In order to test the HES, experiments were conducted and satisfactory results were obtained.

Expert elicitation and its interface with technology : a review with a view to designing Elicitator

Expert knowledge is valuable in many modelling endeavours, particularly where data is not extensive or sufficiently robust. In Bayesian statistics, expert opinion may be formulated as informative priors, to provide an honest reflection of the current state of knowledge, before updating this with new information. Technology is increasingly being exploited to help support the process of eliciting such information. This paper reviews the benefits that have been gained from utilizing technology in this way. These benefits can be structured within a six-step elicitation design framework proposed recently (Low Choy et al., 2009). We assume that the purpose of elicitation is to formulate a Bayesian statistical prior, either to provide a standalone expert-defined model, or for updating new data within a Bayesian analysis. We also assume that the model has been pre-specified before selecting the software. In this case, technology has the most to offer to: targeting what experts know (E2), eliciting and encoding expert opinions (E4), whilst enhancing accuracy (E5), and providing an effective and efficient protocol (E6). Benefits include: -providing an environment with familiar nuances (to make the expert comfortable) where experts can explore their knowledge from various perspectives (E2); -automating tedious or repetitive tasks, thereby minimizing calculation errors, as well as encouraging interaction between elicitors and experts (E5); -cognitive gains by educating users, enabling instant feedback (E2, E4-E5), and providing alternative methods of communicating assessments and feedback information, since experts think and learn differently; and -ensuring a repeatable and transparent protocol is used (E6).

Use of expert panels in highway safety: A critique

Expert panels have been used extensively in the development of the "Highway Safety Manual" to extract research information from highway safety experts. While the panels have been used to recommend agendas for new and continuing research, their primary role has been to develop accident modification factors—quantitative relationships between highway safety and various highway safety treatments. Because the expert panels derive quantitative information in a “qualitative” environment and because their findings can have significant impacts on highway safety investment decisions, the expert panel process should be described and critiqued. This paper is the first known written description and critique of the expert panel process and is intended to serve professionals wishing to conduct such panels.