MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2076086422 · doi:10.1121/1.3506345

Bayesian evidence computation for model selection in non-linear geoacoustic inference problems

2010· article· en· W2076086422 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jan Dettmer, Stan E. Dosso, John C. Osler

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicUnderwater Acoustics Research
Canadian institutionsDefence Research and Development CanadaUniversity of Victoria
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Victoria
KeywordsBayesian inferenceComputationBayesian probabilitySampling (signal processing)Approximate Bayesian computationInferenceComputer scienceGeologyModel selectionAlgorithmArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper applies a general Bayesian inference approach, based on Bayesian evidence computation, to geoacoustic inversion of interface-wave dispersion data. Quantitative model selection is carried out by computing the evidence (normalizing constants) for several model parameterizations using annealed importance sampling. The resulting posterior probability density estimate is compared to estimates obtained from Metropolis-Hastings sampling to ensure consistent results. The approach is applied to invert interface-wave dispersion data collected on the Scotian Shelf, off the east coast of Canada for the sediment shear-wave velocity profile. Results are consistent with previous work on these data but extend the analysis to a rigorous approach including model selection and uncertainty analysis. The results are also consistent with core samples and seismic reflection measurements carried out in the area.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.082
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.068

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.082
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.269 · 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
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

Citations36
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of AmericaSame topicUnderwater Acoustics ResearchFrench-language works237,207