A philosophical basis for hydrological uncertainty
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
Uncertainty is an epistemological concept in the sense that any meaningful understanding of uncertainty requires a theory of knowledge. Therefore, uncertainty resulting from scientific endeavors can only be properly understood in the context of a well-defined philosophy of science. Our main message here is that much of the discussion about uncertainty in hydrology has lacked grounding in these foundational concepts, and has resulted in a controversy that is largely the product of logical errors rather than true (axiomatic) disagreement. As an example, we explore the current debate about the appropriate role of probability theory for hydrological uncertainty quantification. Our main messages are: (1) apparent (and/or claimed) limitations of probability theory are not actually consequences of that theory, but rather of deeper underlying epistemological (and ontological) issues; (2) questions about the appropriateness of probability theory are only meaningful if posed as questions about our preferred philosophy of science; and (3) questions about uncertainty may often be better posed as questions about available information and information use efficiency. Our purpose here is to discuss how hydrologists might ask more meaningful questions about uncertainty.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it