add operationalization details for PathOS case studies across multiple indicators

[PetrosStav]

@vtraag I added the operationalization sections in all the indicators that were used by the case studies based on the D3.4 deliverable.

This just mentions that these were operationalized by the X case study and does not go into details, it just references the D3.3 deliverable in Zenodo (this is not published yet, so i put the PathOS Zenodo community link instead)

[PetrosStav]

This is the minimum requirement for the operationalization part, in some indicators the case studies we may have to add more details, if they used something else than what is described in the indicator handbook.

[vtraag]

Thanks for this @PetrosStav. I don't fully see what this adds to the handbook. Many of these indicators are used in many studies, not only in PathOS case studies. Why should those case studies be specifically mentioned in the handbook, instead of the many other studies that make use of such indicators?

[PetrosStav]

Thanks for the feedback, @vtraag. I discussed this with Ioanna, and the idea is that all case studies should be mentioned so that users can look up operationalization details, results, and related references for the indicators; it’s up to the authors of those studies to add and cite them accordingly.

To address your point, I was thinking of adjusting the section title to be less PathOS-specific; for example, changing “Operationalization in PathOS Case Studies” to “Operationalization in Case Studies.” Would that be a better fit?

[vtraag]

Using "Operationalization in Case Studies" might be a better fit indeed, but the original point still remains: why should some of our case studies be particularly mentioned instead of other studies that have operationalised such indicators?