inst/resources/analysis/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/results_accuracy.md

In aclu-national/LibLabReviews: Encourage Effective Peer Review Practices with Useful Tooling

name: Results Accuracy about: Problems or unexpected outcomes in the results from analyses title: '[Results Accuracy] [ISSUE TITLE]' labels: 'Results Accuracy :telescope:'

Data / Results

How'd You Find this Issue

- [ ] Spot check (eg randomly reviewed X results from run and prediction didnt make logical sense) - [ ] Diagnostic plots or tests (eg QQ plot, ROC curves, etc) - [ ] Review of components of approach (eg looked at single tree within a random forest, randomly sorted the data before running and got wildly different results, etc.) - [ ] Assertions / Tests (eg unit tests, formal expectations) - [ ] Informal Checks (eg added a bit of code to print summary statistic) - [ ] Comparison to alternatives (eg looked at a different report and similar number was wildly different)

Possible Reasons for Error

Solutions

Possible Regression Prevention Measures

Context (Environment)

Reprodicibility Recceipt

# Datetime
Sys.time()

# Repo
git2r::repository()

# Session Info
sessioninfo::session_info()

aclu-national/LibLabReviews documentation built on Aug. 20, 2020, 7:23 a.m.