Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Explaining mean in tasks.json #102

Merged
merged 2 commits into from Mar 28, 2024

Conversation

micokoch
Copy link
Contributor

Adding explanations to address #99 .

@micokoch micokoch mentioned this pull request Mar 28, 2024
@micokoch
Copy link
Contributor Author

Resolves #24 and #99 .

@@ -98,11 +98,11 @@ Now, read below for details on some of the lines of code in this file:
```

### 5.5. Defining [`"output_type"`](#model_output_format):
- The [`output_type`](#model_output_format) is used to establish the valid model output types for a given modeling task. In this example they include `mean` and `quantile`.
- The [`output_type`](#model_output_format) is used to establish the valid model output types for a given modeling task. In this example they include `mean` and `quantile`, but `median`, `cdf`, `pmf`, and `sample` are other supported output types. Output types have two additional properties, an `output_type_id` and a `value` property, both of which establish the valid values that can be entered for this output type.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Not a request for a change here, but flagging that based on ongoing work on sample output types, we might eventually change this so that there would be an output_type_id_params argument in there as well.

Copy link
Contributor

@nickreich nickreich left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think these changes are good. made one comment about something that will possibly need to be updated later, but otherwise, LGTM! I had flagged @annakrystalli as a reviewer too, but I think that is not needed, as the scope of changes here is minimal.

@nickreich nickreich removed the request for review from annakrystalli March 28, 2024 20:03
@nickreich nickreich merged commit 2cceb73 into Infectious-Disease-Modeling-Hubs:main Mar 28, 2024
1 check passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
Status: Done
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants