Automated quality control methods for sensor data: a novel observatory approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. National and international networks and observatories of terrestrial-based sensors are emerging rapidly. As such, there is demand for a standardized approach to data quality control, as well as interoperability of data among sensor networks. The National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON) has begun constructing their first terrestrial observing sites with 60 locations expected to be distributed across the US by 2017. This will result in over 14 000 automated sensors recording more than > 100 Tb of data per year. These data are then used to create other datasets and subsequent "higher-level" data products. In anticipation of this challenge, an overall data quality assurance plan has been developed and the first suite of data quality control measures defined. This data-driven approach focuses on automated methods for defining a suite of plausibility test parameter thresholds. Specifically, these plausibility tests scrutinize data range, persistence, and stochasticity on each measurement type by employing a suite of binary checks. The statistical basis for each of these tests is developed and the methods for calculating test parameter thresholds are explored here. While these tests have been used elsewhere, we apply them in a novel approach by calculating their relevant test parameter thresholds. Finally, implementing automated quality control is demonstrated with preliminary data from a NEON prototype site.
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 | 0.021 | 0.097 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".