Assessing predictability of environmental time series with statistical and machine learning 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
The ever increasing popularity of machine learning methods in virtually all areas of science, engineering and beyond is poised to put established statistical modeling approaches into question. Environmental statistics is no exception, as popular constructs such as neural networks and decision trees are now routinely used to provide forecasts of physical processes ranging from air pollution to meteorology. This presents both challenges and opportunities to the statistical community, which could contribute to the machine learning literature with a model-based approach with formal uncertainty quantification. Should, however, classical statistical methodologies be discarded altogether in environmental statistics, and should our contribution be focused on formalizing machine learning constructs? This work aims at providing some answers to this thought-provoking question with two time series case studies where selected models from both the statistical and machine learning literature are compared in terms of forecasting skills, uncertainty quantification and computational time. Relative merits of both class of approaches are discussed, and broad open questions are formulated as a baseline for a discussion on the topic.
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