MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402273081 · doi:10.26434/chemrxiv-2024-m2h4h

A comprehensive approach to analyzing environmental data with non-detects

2024· preprint· en· W4402273081 on OpenAlexaff
Benjamin F. Trueman, Madison Gouthro, Amina K. Stoddart, Graham A. Gagnon

Bibliographic record

VenueChemRxiv · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater Quality Monitoring and Analysis
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceEnvironmental dataData scienceData miningPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Non-detects—measurements reported as “below the detection limit”—are ubiquitous in environmental science and engineering. They are frequently replaced with a constant, but this biases estimates of means, regression slopes, and correlation coefficients. Omitting non-detects is worse, and has led to serious errors. Simple alternatives are available: rank-based statistics, maximum likelihood estimation, and re-purposed survival analysis routines. But many environmental datasets do not align well with the assumptions these methods make—it is often necessary to account for hierarchy (e.g., measurements nested within lakes), sampling strategy (e.g., measurements collected as time series), heterogeneity (e.g., site-dependent variance), and measurement error. Bayesian methods offer the flexibility to do this; incorporating non-detects is also easy and does not bias model parameter estimates as substitution does. Here we discuss Bayesian implementations of common bivariate and multivariate statistical methods relevant to environmental science. We use a dataset comprising time series of Ag, As, Cd, Ce, Co, Sb, Ti, U, and V concentrations in municipal biosolids that includes many non-detects. The models can be reproduced and extended to new problems using the data and code accompanying this paper.

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.046
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.093

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.046
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0050.008
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChemRxivSame topicWater Quality Monitoring and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207