MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2058726491 · doi:10.2307/3316006

Spatial prediction and temporal backcasting for environmental fields having monotone data patterns

2001· article· en· W2058726491 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Nhu D. Le, Li Sun, James V. Zidek

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Statistics · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil Geostatistics and Mapping
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaBC Cancer Agency
FundersDivision of Materials ResearchNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMinistry of Environment
KeywordsLog-normal distributionBayesian probabilityField (mathematics)Spatial analysisStatisticsDistribution (mathematics)Sampling (signal processing)Wishart distributionMathematicsComputer scienceEconometricsFilter (signal processing)Multivariate statistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The authors develop a methodology for predicting unobserved values in a conditionally lognormal random spatial field like those commonly encountered in environmental risk analysis. These unobserved values are of two types. The first come from spatial locations where the field has never been monitored, the second, from currently monitored sites which have been only recently installed. Thus the monitoring data exhibit a monotone pattern, resembling a staircase whose highest step comes from the oldest monitoring sites. The authors propose a hierarchical Bayesian approach using the lognormal sampling distribution, in conjunction with a conjugate generalized Wishart distribution. This prior distribution allows different degrees of freedom to be fitted for individual steps, taking into account the differential amounts of information available from sites at the different steps in the staircase. The resulting hierarchical model is a predictive distribution for the unobserved values of the field. The method is demonstrated by application to the ambient ozone field for the southwestern region of British Columbia.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.750
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations22
Published2001
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of StatisticsSame topicSoil Geostatistics and MappingFrench-language works237,207