MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2962585917 · doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2019.07.007

Introductory overview of identifiability analysis: A guide to evaluating whether you have the right type of data for your modeling purpose

2019· article· en· W2962585917 on OpenAlexaff
Joseph H. A. Guillaume, John Jakeman, Stefano Marsili-Libelli, M. J. C. Asher, Philip Brunner, Barry Croke, Mary C. Hill, Anthony J. Jakeman, Karel J. Keesman, Saman Razavi, J.D. Stigter

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Modelling & Software · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicGroundwater flow and contamination studies
Canadian institutionsGlobal Institute for Water SecurityUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNational Nuclear Security AdministrationEmil Aaltosen SäätiöAcademy of FinlandSandia National LaboratoriesU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsIdentifiabilityComputer scienceForcing (mathematics)Estimation theoryKey (lock)Model parameterExperimental dataFunction (biology)Data miningType (biology)EconometricsData scienceMathematicsAlgorithmStatisticsMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score0.359

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1070.054

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.

Opus teacher head0.094
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.245 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations200
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Modelling & SoftwareSame topicGroundwater flow and contamination studiesFrench-language works237,207