Predicting cyanobacteria abundance with Bayesian zero-inflated models
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
Abstract Cyanobacterial blooms are a persistent concern to water management and treatment, with blooms potentially causing the release of toxins and degrading water quality. However, previous models have not considered the zero inflation of cyanobacteria count data. Typically, a relatively large proportion of measured count data are zeros or non-detects of cyanobacteria, representing either no cyanobacteria was present or the cell number was too low to be detected. Commonly used Poisson and negative binomial models for count data underestimate the probability of zero data, making these models less reliable. This study proposes a Bayesian approach to fit the cyanobacteria abundance data with mixture models that handle zero-inflated data. Predictor variables considered included weather and water quality measures that can easily be obtained day-to-day. The optimal model (zero-inflated negative binomial) was used to predict cyanobacteria alert levels on a separate test set. The ability to predict narrow alert levels was limited, however, 76% accuracy was achieved in predicting cyanobacteria counts above or below 1,000 cells/mL. Parameter estimates were highly variable and demonstrated that complex and uncertain factors influence cyanobacteria count predictions. The modelling approach can be applied to a wide range of environmental problems where zero-inflated data is common.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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