A CDC sponsored project for evaluating data on emerging genetic tests. It takes its name from the four components of evaluation: For details, see CDC: In a disease association study, if the risk conferred by an allele is increased r-fold for heterozygotes and 2r-fold for homozygotes, this corresponds to additive model Lewis, ; Minelli,
Introducing the Foresee Database Cross-case analysis is a research method that facilitates the comparison of commonalities and difference in the events, activities, and processes that are the units of analyses in case studies. The expertise embedded within the vast number of case studies in the fields of education and sociology remains relatively dormant.
In this paper, we propose cross-case analysis as a mechanism for mining existing case studies so that knowledge from cases can be put into service for broader purposes.
To mobilize case knowledge across subject domains and across communities, we introduce the creation of a novel database. The database represents a workspace to perform cross-case analysis and a workspace where expertise can flow in systematic and unexpected ways through the representation, transfer and mobilization of case studies.
It provokes the researcher's imagination, prompts new questions, reveals new dimensions, produces alternatives, generates models, and constructs ideals and utopias STRETTON, Cross-case analysis enables case study researchers to delineate the combination of factors that may have contributed to the outcomes of the case, seek or construct an explanation as to why one case is different or the same as others, make sense of puzzling or unique findings, or further articulate the concepts, hypotheses, or theories discovered or constructed from the original case.
Cross-case analysis enhances researchers' capacities to understand how relationships may exist among discrete cases, accumulate knowledge from the original case, refine and develop concepts RAGIN,and build or test theory ECKSTEIN, Furthermore, cross-case analysis allows the researcher to compare cases from one or more settings, communities, or groups.
This provides opportunities to learn from different cases and gather critical evidence to modify policy. These learning theories support the notion that researchers develop expertise from cases, and they conceptualize the processes through which this expertise is cultivated.
Cumulatively, these theories appear to hypothesize that cognition involves cases of experiences and that learning from cases is accomplished by cross-case analysis. The authors extend these hypotheses on learning and suggest that case study researchers can develop expertise through learning from and comparing cases.
When the case study researcher makes this comparison public, case knowledge becomes mobilized. This allows them to engage in inferential and analogical reasoning.
These cross-connections can take the forms of either cognitive assimilation or accommodation of concepts. Assimilation of concepts increases knowledge while preserving the cognitive structure, whereas accommodation modifies existing knowledge to account for the new experience.
KOLODNER further theorizes that the lessons learned from the combination of previous and new cases are encoded and indexed in memory as abstract generalizations. This process of memory storage and retrieval implies that a person will be able to evaluate possible solutions through an indexing process that discriminates among cases.
At memory retrieval time, when the person is engaged in a new situation, a memory probe searches through the index for cases that are similar to the new one.
This ability to enlighten oneself develops over time through case-based reasoning. It appears that analyses of a variety of cases are necessary to learn well.
Experts think quickly, intuitively, holistically, interpretive, and visually. This intimate knowledge is gained through reflection upon thousands of cases directly, holistically, and intuitively. Case studies are the domain of expertise, which is neither guesswork nor a conscious analytical division of situations into parts and rules but rather, the recognition, interpretation and discrimination of cases and new situations.
DONMOYER's conception of generalization reveals how an expert might simultaneously access numerous cases to make a comparison among these cases.
DONMOYER suggests that new understanding takes root when an individual begins to generalize across cases that were derived or constructed from different contexts. Instead, he views learning from cases as a meaning-making endeavor in which cross-case analysis is essential.
DONMOYER suggests that learning from case knowledge can be better characterized as assimilating, accommodating, and integrating case knowledge from previously learned cases.
His own example of becoming a better teacher over the years exemplifies this kind of learning. DONMOYER suggests that his development as a teacher was not an effort to consciously test hypotheses in the different schools he taught at but rather, an attempt to learn from individual cases of teaching that he and others experienced over the years.
These new connections made across cases produce new knowledge and augment existing knowledge and experience.
The HUDOC database provides access to the case-law of the Court (Grand Chamber, Chamber and Committee judgments and decisions, communicated cases, advisory opinions and legal summaries from the Case-Law Information Note), the European Commission of Human Rights (decisions and reports) and the Committee of Ministers (resolutions). There is a process for resolving conflicting data that depends on voting strength. Members of the Unicode consortium get increased voting strength, from liaison members up to full members. Most importantly, annotated statutes contain case annotations, editorially selected cases that are illustrative of your statute's application. In electronic legal research, you get the added benefit of a citator report with your annotated statute, so you can see not just the illustrative cases, but in fact all cases that have cited your statute.
While learning theorists invoke different cognitive structures and processes to explain cross-case analysis, there are the following commonalities: Review of Several Cross-Case Analysis Approaches and Techniques There are several well-known cross-case analysis approaches and techniques available to the case study researcher.
RAGIN for example delineates between variable and case-oriented research as two approaches to cross-case comparisons.
In variable-oriented research, variables take center stage; that is, the outcome observed in the cases varies across observations and causes appear to compete with one another. The cases are selected in advance with an eye toward randomness or the degree to which they represent the general population.The Online Writing Lab (OWL) at Purdue University houses writing resources and instructional material, and we provide these as a free service of the Writing Lab at Purdue.
These are noted by an older date of judgment to the primary case. Court Annotations The following list of annotations are used by the court in the subsequent appeal proceedings or in the subsequent case where the primary case has been judicially considered.
Please review them. Deriving meaning in a time of chaos: The intersection between chaos engineering and observability. Crystal Hirschorn discusses how organizations can benefit from combining established tech practices with incident planning, post-mortem-driven development, chaos engineering, and observability.
Executive Summary Page 1 of 6 Cae eotAnnotated Case Study Report. Executive Summary Te of eot. Page 1 of 6 Executive Summary The focal problem facing Company XYZ is that sales are declining and employee morale.
Ranked # 3 in "International Relations" and # 4 in "Law" in the Journal Citation Report, based on data.. Ranked # 2 in the Top journals on International Law Ranked # 1 . The HUDOC database provides access to the case-law of the Court (Grand Chamber, Chamber and Committee judgments and decisions, communicated cases, advisory opinions and legal summaries from the Case-Law Information Note), the European Commission of Human Rights (decisions and reports) and the Committee of Ministers (resolutions).