Good modeling practice guidelines for applying multimedia models in chemical assessments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.062 | 0.129 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.006 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".