Metal Mixture Modeling Evaluation project: 2. Comparison of four modeling approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As part of the Metal Mixture Modeling Evaluation (MMME) project, models were developed by the National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (Japan), the US Geological Survey (USA), HDR|HydroQual (USA), and the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (United Kingdom) to address the effects of metal mixtures on biological responses of aquatic organisms. A comparison of the 4 models, as they were presented at the MMME workshop in Brussels, Belgium (May 2012), is provided in the present study. Overall, the models were found to be similar in structure (free ion activities computed by the Windermere humic aqueous model [WHAM]; specific or nonspecific binding of metals/cations in or on the organism; specification of metal potency factors or toxicity response functions to relate metal accumulation to biological response). Major differences in modeling approaches are attributed to various modeling assumptions (e.g., single vs multiple types of binding sites on the organism) and specific calibration strategies that affected the selection of model parameters. The models provided a reasonable description of additive (or nearly additive) toxicity for a number of individual toxicity test results. Less-than-additive toxicity was more difficult to describe with the available models. Because of limitations in the available datasets and the strong interrelationships among the model parameters (binding constants, potency factors, toxicity response parameters), further evaluation of specific model assumptions and calibration strategies is needed.
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 | 0.025 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".