Reflections on uncertainty in risk assessment and risk management by the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) precautionary principle workgroup
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quantitative uncertainty assessments and the distribution of risk are under scrutiny and significant criticism has been made of null hypothesis testing when careful consideration of Type I (false positive) and II (false negative) error rates have not been taken into account. An alternative method, equivalence testing, is discussed yielding more transparency and potentially more precaution in the quantifiable uncertainty assessments. With thousands of chemicals needing regulation in the near future and low public trust in the regulatory process, decision models are required with transparency and learning processes to manage this task. Adaptive, iterative, and learning decision making tools and processes can help decision makers evaluate the significance of Type I or Type II errors on decision alternatives and can reduce the risk of committing Type III errors (accurate answers to the wrong questions). Simplistic cost-benefit based decision-making tools do not incorporate the complex interconnectedness characterizing environmental risks, nor do they enhance learning, participation, or include social values and ambiguity. Hence, better decision-making tools are required, and MIRA is an attempt to include some of the critical aspects.
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 | 0.107 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.033 | 0.055 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".