A kernel‐based method to determine optimal sampling times for the simultaneous estimation of the parameters of rival mathematical models
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
When several models are proposed for one and the same process, experimental design techniques are available to design optimal discriminatory experiments. However, because the experimental design techniques are model-based, it is important that the required model predictions are not too uncertain. This uncertainty is determined by the quality of the already available data, since low-quality data will result in poorly estimated parameters, which on their turn result in uncertain model predictions. Therefore, model discrimination may become more efficient and effective if this uncertainty is reduced first. This can be achieved by performing dedicated experiments, designed to increase the accuracy of the parameter estimates. However, performing such an additional experiment for each rival model may undermine the overall goal of optimal experimental design, which is to minimize the experimental effort. In this article, a kernel-based method is presented to determine optimal sampling times to simultaneously estimate the parameters of rival models in a single experiment. The method is applied in a case study where nine rival models are defined to describe the kinetics of an enzymatic reaction (glucokinase). The results clearly show that the presented method performs well, and that a compromise experiment is found which is sufficiently informative to improve the overall accuracy of the parameters of all rival models, thus allowing subsequent design of an optimal discriminatory experiment.
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