Inference of emission rates from multiple sources using Bayesian probability theory
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The determination of atmospheric emission rates from multiple sources using inversion (regularized least-squares or best-fit technique) is known to be very susceptible to measurement and model errors in the problem, rendering the solution unusable. In this paper, a new perspective is offered for this problem: namely, it is argued that the problem should be addressed as one of inference rather than inversion. Towards this objective, Bayesian probability theory is used to estimate the emission rates from multiple sources. The posterior probability distribution for the emission rates is derived, accounting fully for the measurement errors in the concentration data and the model errors in the dispersion model used to interpret the data. The Bayesian inferential methodology for emission rate recovery is validated against real dispersion data, obtained from a field experiment involving various source-sensor geometries (scenarios) consisting of four synthetic area sources and eight concentration sensors. The recovery of discrete emission rates from three different scenarios obtained using Bayesian inference and singular value decomposition inversion are compared and contrasted.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it