Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary In process characterization the quality of information that is obtained depends directly on the quality of process model. The current quality revolution is now providing a strong stimulus for rethinking and re-evaluating many statistical ideas. Among these are the role of theoretic knowledge and data in statistical inference and some issues in theoretic–empirical modelling. With this concern the paper takes a broad, pragmatic view of statistical inference to include all aspects of model formulation. The estimation of model parameters traditionally assumes that a model has a prespecified known form and takes no account of possible uncertainty regarding model structure. But in practice model structural uncertainty is a fact of life and is likely to be more serious than other sources of uncertainty which have received far more attention. This is true whether the model is specified on subject-matter grounds or when a model is formulated, fitted and checked on the same data set in an iterative interactive way. For that reason novel modelling techniques have been fashioned for reducing model uncertainty. Using available knowledge for theoretic model elaboration the techniques that have been created approximate the exact unknown process model concurrently by accessible theoretic and polynomial empirical functions. The paper examines the effects of uncertainty for hybrid theoretic–empirical models and, for reducing uncertainty, additive and multiplicative methods of model formulation are fashioned. Such modelling techniques have been successfully applied to perfect a steady flow model for an air gauge sensor. Validation of the models elaborated has revealed that the multiplicative modelling approach allows us to attain a satisfactory model with small discrepancy from empirical evidence.
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 | 0.018 | 0.100 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".