4.7 Article

On improving the communication between models and data

期刊

PLANT CELL AND ENVIRONMENT
卷 36, 期 9, 页码 1575-1585

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/pce.12043

关键词

accessibility; Bayesian statistics; data assimilation; informatics; PEcAn; provenance; uncertainty; workflow

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [10-62547, 10-65848]
  2. Energy Biosciences Institute
  3. Direct For Biological Sciences
  4. Emerging Frontiers [1065702, 1346748] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  5. Div Of Biological Infrastructure
  6. Direct For Biological Sciences [1062547] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The potential for model-data synthesis is growing in importance as we enter an era of 'big data', greater connectivity and faster computation. Realizing this potential requires that the research community broaden its perspective about how and why they interact with models. Models can be viewed as scaffolds that allow data at different scales to inform each other through our understanding of underlying processes. Perceptions of relevance, accessibility and informatics are presented as the primary barriers to broader adoption of models by the community, while an inability to fully utilize the breadth of expertise and data from the community is a primary barrier to model improvement. Overall, we promote a community-based paradigm to model-data synthesis and highlight some of the tools and techniques that facilitate this approach. Scientific workflows address critical informatics issues in transparency, repeatability and automation, while intuitive, flexible web-based interfaces make running and visualizing models more accessible. Bayesian statistics provides powerful tools for assimilating a diversity of data types and for the analysis of uncertainty. Uncertainty analyses enable new measurements to target those processes most limiting our predictive ability. Moving forward, tools for information management and data assimilation need to be improved and made more accessible.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据