Bayesian Design of Agricultural Disease Transmission Experiments for Individual Level Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Here, we address the issue of experimental design for animal and crop disease transmission experiments, where the goal is to identify some characteristic of the underlying infectious disease system via a mechanistic disease transmission model. Design for such non-linear models is complicated by the fact that the optimal design depends upon the parameters of the model, so the problem is set in simulation-based, Bayesian framework using informative priors. This involves simulating the experiment over a given design repeatedly using parameter values drawn from the prior, calculating a Monte Carlo estimate of the utility function from those simulations for the given design, and then repeating this over the design space in order to find an optimal design or set of designs. Here we consider two agricultural scenarios. The first involves an experiment to characterize the effectiveness of a vaccine-based treatment on an animal disease in an in-barn setting. The design question of interest is on which days to make observations if we are limited to being able to observe the disease status of all animals on only two days. The second envisages a trial being carried out to estimate the spatio-temporal transmission dynamics of a crop disease. The design question considered here is how far apart to space the plants from each other to best capture those dynamics. In the in-barn animal experiment, we see that for the prior scenarios considered, observations taken very close to the beginning of the experiment tend to lead to designs with the highest values of our chosen utility functions. In the crop trial, we see that over the prior scenarios considered, spacing between plants is important for experimental performance, with plants being placed too close together being particularly deleterious to that performance.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.089 | 0.145 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".