MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2081766555 · doi:10.1002/ieam.1299

Good modeling practice guidelines for applying multimedia models in chemical assessments

2012· article· en· W2081766555 on OpenAlexaff
Andreas M. Buser, Matthew MacLeod, Martin Scheringer, Don Mackay, Mark Bonnell, Mark H. Russell, Joseph V. DePinto, Konrad Hungerbühler

Bibliographic record

VenueIntegrated Environmental Assessment and Management · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicToxic Organic Pollutants Impact
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaTrent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransparency (behavior)Computer scienceContext (archaeology)Risk analysis (engineering)Quality (philosophy)Management scienceEngineeringComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multimedia mass balance models of chemical fate in the environment have been used for over 3 decades in a regulatory context to assist decision making. As these models become more comprehensive, reliable, and accepted, there is a need to recognize and adopt principles of Good Modeling Practice (GMP) to ensure that multimedia models are applied with transparency and adherence to accepted scientific principles. We propose and discuss 6 principles of GMP for applying existing multimedia models in a decision-making context, namely 1) specification of the goals of the model assessment, 2) specification of the model used, 3) specification of the input data, 4) specification of the output data, 5) conduct of a sensitivity and possibly also uncertainty analysis, and finally 6) specification of the limitations and limits of applicability of the analysis. These principles are justified and discussed with a view to enhancing the transparency and quality of model-based assessments.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.948
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.301 · 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.

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

Citations45
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIntegrated Environmental Assessment and ManagementSame topicToxic Organic Pollutants ImpactFrench-language works237,207