Bayesian Modeling of Exposure and Airflow Using Two-Zone Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mathematical modeling is being increasingly used as a means for assessing occupational exposures. However, predicting exposure in real settings is constrained by lack of quantitative knowledge of exposure determinants. Validation of models in occupational settings is, therefore, a challenge. Not only do the model parameters need to be known, the models also need to predict the output with some degree of accuracy. In this paper, a Bayesian statistical framework is used for estimating model parameters and exposure concentrations for a two-zone model. The model predicts concentrations in a zone near the source and far away from the source as functions of the toluene generation rate, air ventilation rate through the chamber, and the airflow between near and far fields. The framework combines prior or expert information on the physical model along with the observed data. The framework is applied to simulated data as well as data obtained from the experiments conducted in a chamber. Toluene vapors are generated from a source under different conditions of airflow direction, the presence of a mannequin, and simulated body heat of the mannequin. The Bayesian framework accounts for uncertainty in measurement as well as in the unknown rate of airflow between the near and far fields. The results show that estimates of the interzonal airflow are always close to the estimated equilibrium solutions, which implies that the method works efficiently. The predictions of near-field concentration for both the simulated and real data show nice concordance with the true values, indicating that the two-zone model assumptions agree with the reality to a large extent and the model is suitable for predicting the contaminant concentration. Comparison of the estimated model and its margin of error with the experimental data thus enables validation of the physical model assumptions. The approach illustrates how exposure models and information on model parameters together with the knowledge of uncertainty and variability in these quantities can be used to not only provide better estimates of model outputs but also model parameters.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".