A New Combined Assessment of Mixed Uncertainty in Spatial Models: Conceptualization and Implementation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Uncertainty quantification is not often performed in spatial modeling applications, especially when there is a mixture of probabilistic and non‐probabilistic uncertainties. Furthermore, the effect of positional uncertainty is often not assessed, despite its relevance to geographical applications. Although there has been much work in investigating the aforementioned types of uncertainty in isolation, combined approaches have not been much researched. This has resulted in a lack of tools for conducting mixed uncertainty analyses that include positional uncertainty. This research addresses the issue by first presenting a new, flexible, simulation‐oriented conceptualization of positional uncertainty in geographic objects called F‐Objects. F‐Objects accommodates various representations of uncertainty, while remaining conceptually simple. Second, a new Python‐based framework is introduced, termed Wiggly and capable of conducting mixed uncertainty propagation using fuzzy Monte Carlo simulation (FMCS). FMCS combines both traditional Monte Carlo with fuzzy analysis in a so‐called hybrid approach. F‐Objects is implemented within the Wiggly framework, resulting in a tool capable of considering any combination of: (1) probabilistic variables; (2) fuzzy variables; and (3) positional uncertainty of objects (probabilistic/fuzzy). Finally, a realistic GIS‐based groundwater contamination problem demonstrates how F‐Objects and Wiggly can be used to assess the effect of positional 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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".