Sensitivity analysis: A discipline coming of age
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sensitivity analysis (SA) as a ‘formal’ and ‘standard’ component of scientific development and policy support is relatively young. Many researchers and practitioners from a wide range of disciplines have contributed to SA over the last three decades, and the SAMO (sensitivity analysis of model output) conferences, since 1995, have been the primary driver of breeding a community culture in this heterogeneous population. Now, SA is evolving into a mature and independent field of science, indeed a discipline with emerging applications extending well into new areas such as data science and machine learning. At this growth stage, the present editorial leads a special issue consisting of one Position Paper on “ The future of sensitivity analysis ” and 11 research papers on “ Sensitivity analysis for environmental modelling ” published in Environmental Modelling & Software in 2020–21.
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 | 0.052 | 0.100 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.024 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".