Spatio-temporal data fusion for the analysis of in situ and remote sensing data using the INLA-SPDE approach
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
We propose a Bayesian hierarchical model to address the challenge of spatial misalignment in spatio-temporal data obtained from in situ and satellite sources. The model is fit using the INLA-SPDE approach, which provides efficient computation. Our methodology combines the different data sources in a “fusion” model via the construction of projection matrices in both spatial and temporal domains. Through simulation studies, we demonstrate that the fusion model has superior performance in prediction accuracy across space and time compared to standalone “in situ” and “satellite” models based on only in situ or satellite data, respectively. The fusion model also generally outperforms the standalone models in terms of parameter inference. Such a modeling approach is motivated by environmental problems, and our specific focus is on the analysis and prediction of harmful algae bloom (HAB) events, where the convention is to conduct separate analyses based on either in situ samples or satellite images. A real data analysis shows that the proposed model is a necessary step towards a unified characterization of bloom dynamics and identifying the key drivers of HAB events.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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