Rare Event Analysis Considering Data and Model 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
Abstract In risk analysis of rare events, there is a need to adopt data from different sources with varying levels of detail (e.g., local, regional, categorical data). Therefore, it is very important to identify, understand, and incorporate the uncertainty that accompanies the data. Hierarchical Bayesian analysis (HBA) addresses uncertainty among the aggregated data for each event through generating an informative prior distribution for the event's parameter of interest. The Bayesian network (BN) approach is used to model accident causation. BN enables both inductive and abductive reasoning, which helps to better understand and minimize model uncertainty. In this work, the methodology is proposed to integrate BN with HBA to model rare events, considering both data and model uncertainty. HBA considers data uncertainty, while BN uses an adaptive model to better represent and manage model uncertainty. Application of the proposed methodology is demonstrated using three types of offshore accidents. The proposed methodology provides a way to develop a dynamic risk analysis approach to rare events.
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 | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it