Hierarchical Bayesian approach to boundary value problems with stochastic boundary conditions. Monthly Weather Review 131
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Boundary value problems are ubiquitous in the atmospheric and ocean sciences. Typical settings include bounded, partially bounded, global and limited area domains, discretized for applications of numerical models of the relevant fluid equations. Often, limited area models are constructed to interpret intensive datasets collected over a specific region, from a variety of observational platforms. These data are noisy and they typically do not span the domain of interest uniformly in space and time. Traditional numerical procedures cannot easily account for these uncertainties. A hierarchical Bayesian modeling framework is developed for solving boundary value problems in such settings. By allowing the boundary process to be stochastic, and conditioning the interior process on this boundary, one can account for the uncertainties in the boundary process in a reasonable fashion. In the presence of data and all its uncertainties, this idea can be related through Bayes ’ Theorem to produce distributions of the interior process given the observational data. The method is illustrated with an example of obtaining atmospheric streamfunction fields in the Labrador Sea region, given scatterometer-derived observations of the surface wind field. 1 1
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 | 0.007 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".