MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4317879902 · doi:10.5194/hess-2022-349-rc2

Comment on hess-2022-349

2023· peer-review· en· W4317879902 on OpenAlexaff
Trevor Page, Paul J. Smith, Keith Beven, Francesca Pianosi, Fanny Sarrazin, Susana Almeida, Elizabeth Holcombe, Jim Freer, Thorsten Wagener

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepeer-review
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicGroundwater flow and contamination studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanGlobal Institute for Water Security
FundersNatural Environment Research Council
KeywordsToolboxComputer scienceWorkflowScripting languageVariety (cybernetics)Range (aeronautics)Set (abstract data type)Data miningEstimationDomain (mathematical analysis)Monte Carlo methodUncertainty quantificationSoftware engineeringMachine learningData scienceProgramming languageArtificial intelligenceDatabaseStatisticsSystems engineeringMathematicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. There is a general trend for increasing inclusion of uncertainty estimation in the environmental modelling domain. We present the CREDIBLE Uncertainty Estimation (CURE) Toolbox, an open source MATLABTM toolbox for uncertainty estimation aimed at scientists and practitioners that are not necessarily experts in uncertainty estimation. The toolbox focusses on environmental simulation models and hence employs a range of different Monte Carlo methods for forward and conditioned uncertainty estimation. The methods included span both formal statistical and informal approaches, which are demonstrated using a range of modelling applications set up as workflow scripts. The workflow scripts provide examples of how to utilise toolbox functions for a variety of modelling applications and hence aid the user in defining their own workflow: additional help is provided by extensively commented code. The toolbox implementation aims to increase the uptake of uncertainty estimation methods within a framework designed to be open and explicit, in a way that tries to represent best practice in applying the methods included. Best practice in the evaluation of modelling assumptions and choices, specifically including epistemic uncertainties, is also included by the incorporation of a condition tree that allows users to record assumptions and choices made as an audit trail log.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.196
Threshold uncertainty score0.657

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0090.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1960.118

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.251 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGroundwater flow and contamination studies→French-language works237,207→