Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- capri:concept:refrun [2014/06/03 13:15] – mihalyh
+++ capri:concept:refrun [2022/11/07 10:23] (current) – external edit 127.0.0.1
@@ Line 44: / Line 44: @@
-      <P>In opposite to many other reference run approaches, CAPRI employs a Bayesian estimation
+      <P>
+      In opposite to many other reference run approaches, CAPRI employs a Bayesian estimation
       framework to define a mutually consistent set of projection values for activity levels,
@@ Line 54: / Line 55: @@
       framework which maximizes the joint posterior density for given a priori distribution
-      of the different elements. The a priori distribution is whereever possible derived to from exogenous forecasts or expert information.</P>
+      of the different elements. The a priori distribution is wherever possible derived to from exogenous forecasts or expert information.</P>
@@ Line 126: / Line 127: @@
-     <H3>Quality control</H3>
+     <H3>Quality control (validation)</H3>
-     <P>Due to the NUTS 2 resolution with its 280 regions, and the high number of activities, outputs and inputs covered by the CAPRI modelling
+     <P>The reference run can easily comprise several million data points, due to the detailed geographical resolution and to the rich set of agricultural activities and food commodities covered by the CAPRI modelling
+system. In order to ease the validation, results of the reference run are accessible via the Graphical User Interface, where several reporting tables aggregate over activities, commodities and countries.
-     system, the references comprises several Mio numbers. Therefore, aggregates over activities (single cereals aggregated to all cereals)
+     With the help of the GUI, analysts can compare systematically the subsequent steps of the baseline procedure.</P>
-     and products, and over countries to EU15, EU10 etc. are defined and reported in tables accessible via the Graphical user interface.
-     Those tables compare systematically the different inputs (trend estimate, policy shift, estimation results from the different steps).</P>
+     <P>Nevertheless, checking results for plausibility remains a challenge. An interesting comparison of the methdology between the reference
-     <P>Nevertheless, checking results for plausibility remains a challenge. An interested comparison of the methdology between the reference
      run exercise for the OECD/FAO AGLINK-COSIMO model with an estimated input of 20 person months and the CAPRI reference run