Evaluating the Hybrid Modelling Competition: A Step Towards Developing Good Modelling Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hybrid modelling, a combination of mechanistic and data-driven modelling, is a promis¬ing approach to advance current mathematical models towards improved deci¬sion support tools for today's water-related challenges. Researchers have been develop¬ing guidelines or references for good modelling practices in the water field for mecha¬nistic (Rieger et al., 2012) and data-driven (Zhu et al., 2023) modelling, respectively. However, good modelling practices for hybrid modelling are currently missing (Schneider et al., 2022). Therefore, the International Water Association’s (IWA) hybrid modelling working group initiated the first competition on a data science competition platform (i.e. Kaggle) for water resource recovery modelling at the Watermatex con¬ference in September 2023 in Quebec. The main objective of this competition was to gain insights and experience to create good modelling practices. Further goals were to motivate students, researchers, and practitioners model, foster a vibrant and engaged community, and evaluate the efficacy of com¬petitions in solving modelling challenges within the water domain. Our next goal is that facilities will measure and gather relevant data for future competitions to solve their challenges from a modeller’s perspective.
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 | 0.385 | 0.425 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.056 | 0.050 |
| Open science | 0.014 | 0.023 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".