Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30963389›Full record

ArticleScience and engineering ethics2020

How to Weigh Values in Value Sensitive Design: A Best Worst Method Approach for the Case of Smart Metering.

Geerten van de Kaa, Jafar Rezaei, Behnam Taebi, Ibo van de Poel, Abhilash Kizhakenath

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Science and engineering ethics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Geerten van de KaaFaculty of Technology, Policy, and Management, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands. g.vandekaa@tudelft.nl.
Jafar RezaeiFaculty of Technology, Policy, and Management, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.
Behnam TaebiFaculty of Technology, Policy, and Management, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.
Ibo van de PoelFaculty of Technology, Policy, and Management, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.
Abhilash KizhakenathKPMG, Zurich, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Proactively including the ethical and societal issues of new technologies could have a positive effect on their acceptance. These issues could be captured in terms of values. In the literature, the values stakeholders deem important for the development of technology have often been identified. However, the relative ranking of these values in relation to each other have not been studied often. The best worst method is proposed as a possible method to determine the weights of values, hence it is used in an evaluative fashion. The applicability of the method is tested by applying it to the case of smart meters, one of the main components of the smart grid. The importance of values is examined for three dimensions of acceptance namely sociopolitical, market, and household acceptance.

Indexed as

Social ValuesDecision MakingExpert TestimonyHumansIndustrial DevelopmentModels, StatisticalReproducibility of ResultsBest worst methodSmart meteringTechnology acceptanceValueValues

Identifiers

PMID30963389
PMCPMC6978429

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.