Estimating a Representative Value and Proportion of True Zeros for Censored Analytical Data with Applications to Contaminated Site Assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper demonstrates a maximum likelihood (ML)-based approach to derive representative ("best guess") contaminant concentrations from data with censored values (e.g., less than the detection limit). The method represents an advancement over existing techniques because it is capable of estimating the proportion of measurements that are true zeros and incorporating varying levels of censorship (e.g., sample specific detection limits, changes through time in method detection). The ability of the method to estimate the proportion of true zeros is validated using precipitation data. The stability and flexibility of the method are demonstrated with stochastic simulation, a sensitivity analysis, and unbiasedness analysis including varying numbers of significant digits. A key aspect of this paper is the application of the statistical analysis to real site rock core contaminant concentration data collected within a plume at two locations using high resolution depth-discrete sampling. Comparison of the representative values for concentrations at each location along the plume center-line shows a larger number of true zeros and generally lower concentrations at the downgradient location according to the conceptual site model, leading to improved estimates of attenuation with distance and/or time and associated confidence; this is not achievable using deterministic methods. The practical relevance of the proposed method is that it provides an improved basis for evaluating change (spatial, temporal, or both) in environmental systems.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".