MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1993625536 · doi:10.1080/15287390600884941

Bayesian Model Averaging in Time-Series Studies of Air Pollution and Mortality

2007· article· en· W1993625536 on OpenAlexaff
Duncan C. Thomas, Michael Jerrett, Nino Küenzli, Thomas A. Louis, Francesca Dominici, Scott L. Zeger, Joel Schwarz, Richard T. Burnett, Daniel Krewski, David V. Bates

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Toxicology and Environmental Health · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAir Quality and Health Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaInstitute of Population and Public HealthHealth Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBayesian probabilityScrutinyBayesian inferenceSelection (genetic algorithm)Model selectionAir pollutionEnvironmental scienceEconometricsComputer scienceMathematicsMachine learningArtificial intelligencePolitical scienceLawEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The issue of model selection in time-series studies assessing the acute health effects from short-term exposure to ambient air pollutants has received increased scrutiny in the past 5 yr. Recently, Bayesian model averaging (BMA) has been applied to allow for uncertainty about model form in assessing the association between mortality and ambient air pollution. While BMA has the potential to allow for such uncertainties in risk estimates, Bayesian approaches in general and BMA in particular are not panaceas for model selection., Since misapplication of Bayesian methods can lead to erroneous conclusions, model selection should be informed by substantive knowledge about the environmental health processes influencing the outcome. This paper examines recent attempts to use BMA in air pollution studies to illustrate the potential benefits and limitations of the method.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.041
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.124
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.219

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0410.124
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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

Citations36
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Toxicology and Environmental HealthSame topicAir Quality and Health ImpactsFrench-language works237,207