Let's take an example from geology.
I describe an area (A) using a topographic map not really well detailed (50m of resolution). In this area, I study variably-sized shapes of geologic structures (e.g., volcanoes). I have also from A, an area B that is way more detailed (1m-resolution) and it has been described by direct observations (on the field). Now, I want to do analyzes of structures within A, given the knowledge from B, and check if similar structures of B are observable in the entire area A (not covered by B) so that the observation is extrapolated over the low-resolution data. I make a description of this in a little section of a paper.
The description is important to make probabilistic estimates. The aim of the paper I have in mind, deals with estimates of (1) where are the wanted structures, and (2) what shape do they have in the entire A.
Problem:
I cannot publish all of what has been done in B (yet), but just enough details (some are published already) to make the main structures wanted being characterized in A.
I want to publish the estimates done within A, but by using low-resolution data, which means, discriminating less characterizable structures; they can still be distinguished though.
Questions:
By doing (a) extrapolation of descriptions, and (b) general estimates on low-resolution data, should I fear about doing to much "speculations"?
I am more concerned about (a) than (b), because for the latter, the results are debatable and the method used is totally new and worthy for research in general.
