Model clustering and its application to water quality monitoring
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
Abstract The classification of objects into groups where the objects within a group share a set of common traits is important in many areas of applications and particularly in environmental pollution studies. Consider the situation where variables are measured on different occasions for each of K objects, and the objective is to classify these objects into groups according to some common characteristics. The procedure introduced in this paper consists of two aspects: model fitting and clustering. The model fitting selects a family of models which is appropriate for the structure and nature of the available measurements, and then is performed for both individual and pooled datasets. The clustering starts with K models that represent the K objects and thus the similarity of the objects reduces to the similarity of their models. Since the models are members of the same family, the models similarity is defined as the equality of their parameters of interest. Here, we partition the parameter vector into two sub‐vectors corresponding to the interested parameters and ancillary parameters. The clustering will group together objects that have common interested parameters while allowing the ancillary parameters to be object specifics. The p ‐value associated with the proposed model linking test is used as the similarity measure. Several grouping strategies are proposed like cluster peeling, pairwise combining, as well as a speeding technique called splitting‐and‐binding. A small simulation study is used to demonstrate the utility of the method. The paper concludes by presenting an environmental application where the interest is to classify E. coli bacteria according to their responses to antibiotic treatments. The data were collected bi‐weekly at several locations within three Canadian watersheds during 2005. Metric closeness in parameter space used by conventional method and likelihood closeness in model space employed by model clustering are discussed in this application. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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