MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1734993443 · doi:10.1109/pacrim.1991.160805

Applying uncertainty principles in environmental modelling

2002· article· en· W1734993443 on OpenAlexaffabout
David Swayne, Jane Kerby, David Lam, R. Benzonelli

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBayesian Modeling and Causal Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBayesian networkInferenceComputer scienceRepresentation (politics)WatershedBayesian inferenceArtificial intelligenceData miningOperations researchMachine learningBayesian probabilityMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The authors implemented a causal probability network (CPN) model using the HUGIN shell to represent part of the overall effect of acid precipitation on lakes. A tool for entering raw data into the CPN model, based on earlier rule-based modeling efforts by the RAISON project at Canada Centre for Inland Waters, Environment Canada, was developed. The network editor developed allows the water chemistry and flow data to be directly applied to calculate marginal distributions ready for input to HUGIN. The authors used the RAISON experience to draw preliminary conclusions concerning environmental models which have representation and propagation of uncertainties in hypotheses and outcomes. The authors show the utilization of Bayesian inference to the watershed aggregates defined for the earlier, rule-based model developed for acid rain. Naturally occurring and industrial causes of aquatic acidity are incorporated in a network with probabilities generated from observations. A sample CPN with four nodes is illustrated. It represents the relationship between water chemistry, color, sulfate load, and the percent reduction of acid neutralizing capacity in a lake.< <ETX xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">&gt;</ETX>

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.907
Threshold uncertainty score0.327

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.070
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.156 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBayesian Modeling and Causal InferenceFrench-language works237,207