Integration of Bayesian inference techniques with mathematical modelling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Skeptical views of the scientific value of modelling argue that there is no true model of an ecological system, but rather several adequate descriptions of different conceptual basis and structure. My study addresses this question using a complex ecosystem model, developed to guide the water quality criteria setting process in the Hamilton Harbour (Ontario, Canada), along with a simpler plankton model that considers the interplay among phosphate, detritus, and generic phytoplankton and zooplankton state variables. Predictions from the two models are combined using the respective standard error estimates as weights in a weighted model average. The two eutrophication models are used in conjunction with the SPAtially Referenced Regressions On Watershed attributes (SPARROW) watershed model. The Bayesian nature of my work is used: (i) to alleviate problems of spatiotemporal resolution mismatch between watershed and receiving waterbody models; and (ii) to overcome the conceptual or scale misalignment between processes of interest and supporting information. The lessons learned from this study will contribute towards the development of integrated modelling frameworks
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 | 0.018 | 0.070 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".