Recent Developments in Species Sensitivity Distribution Modeling
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
The species sensitivity distribution (SSD) is a statistical approach that is used to estimate either the concentration of a chemical that is hazardous to no more than x% of all species (the HCx) or the proportion of species potentially affected by a given concentration of a chemical. Despite a significant body of published research and critical reviews over the past 20 yr aimed at improving the methodology, the fundamentals remain unchanged. Although there have been some recent suggestions for improvements to SSD methods in the literature, in general, few of these suggestions have been formally adopted. Furthermore, critics of the approach can rightly point to the fact that differences in technical implementation can lead to marked differences in results, thereby undermining confidence in SSD approaches. Despite the limitations, SSDs remain a practical tool and, until a demonstrably better inferential framework is available, developments and enhancements to conventional SSD practice will and should continue. We therefore believe the time has come for the scientific community to decide how it wants SSD methods to evolve. The present study summarizes the current status of, and elaborates on several recent developments for, SSD methods, specifically, model averaging, multimodality, and software development. We also consider future directions with respect to the use of SSDs, with the ultimate aim of helping to facilitate greater international collaboration and, potentially, greater harmonization of SSD methods. Environ Toxicol Chem 2021;40:293-308. © 2020 SETAC.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it