Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Causal models as multiple working hypotheses ab...

Research

Associated organisational units

Links

Text available via DOI:

Keywords

View graph of relations

Causal models as multiple working hypotheses about environmental processes

Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review

Published

Standard

Causal models as multiple working hypotheses about environmental processes. / Beven, Keith.
In: Comptes Rendus Géoscience, Vol. 344, No. 2, 02.2012, p. 77-88.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review

Harvard

Beven, K 2012, 'Causal models as multiple working hypotheses about environmental processes', Comptes Rendus Géoscience, vol. 344, no. 2, pp. 77-88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crte.2012.01.005

APA

Beven, K. (2012). Causal models as multiple working hypotheses about environmental processes. Comptes Rendus Géoscience, 344(2), 77-88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crte.2012.01.005

Vancouver

Beven K. Causal models as multiple working hypotheses about environmental processes. Comptes Rendus Géoscience. 2012 Feb;344(2):77-88. doi: 10.1016/j.crte.2012.01.005

Author

Beven, Keith. / Causal models as multiple working hypotheses about environmental processes. In: Comptes Rendus Géoscience. 2012 ; Vol. 344, No. 2. pp. 77-88.

Bibtex

@article{f61e156765124eaaadb87e3f5c36db59,
title = "Causal models as multiple working hypotheses about environmental processes",
abstract = "The environmental modeller faces a dilemma. Science often demands that more and more process representations are incorporated into models (particularly to avoid the possibility of making missing process errors in predicting future response). Testing the causal representations in environmental models (as multiple working hypotheses about the functioning of environmental systems) then depends on specifying boundary conditions and model parameters adequately. This will always be difficult in applications to a real system because of the heterogeneities, non-stationarities, complexities and epistemic uncertainties inherent in environmental prediction. Thus, it can be difficult to define the information content of a data set used in model evaluation and any consequent measures of belief or verisimilitude. A limit of acceptability approach to model evaluation is suggested as a way of testing models, implying that thought is required to define critical experiments that will allow models as hypotheses to be adequately differentiated. (C) 2012 Published by Elsevier Masson SAS on behalf of Academie des sciences.",
keywords = "SYSTEMS, BALANCE, VALIDATION, Modelling philosophy, Critical experiments, HYDROLOGICAL MODELS, UNIFYING FRAMEWORK, INSTRUMENTALISM, PREDICTION, CALIBRATION, Limits of acceptability, Environmental prediction, UNCERTAINTY, Model evaluation, Epistemic uncertainties, WATERSHED THERMODYNAMICS",
author = "Keith Beven",
year = "2012",
month = feb,
doi = "10.1016/j.crte.2012.01.005",
language = "English",
volume = "344",
pages = "77--88",
journal = "Comptes Rendus G{\'e}oscience",
issn = "1631-0713",
publisher = "Elsevier Masson",
number = "2",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Causal models as multiple working hypotheses about environmental processes

AU - Beven, Keith

PY - 2012/2

Y1 - 2012/2

N2 - The environmental modeller faces a dilemma. Science often demands that more and more process representations are incorporated into models (particularly to avoid the possibility of making missing process errors in predicting future response). Testing the causal representations in environmental models (as multiple working hypotheses about the functioning of environmental systems) then depends on specifying boundary conditions and model parameters adequately. This will always be difficult in applications to a real system because of the heterogeneities, non-stationarities, complexities and epistemic uncertainties inherent in environmental prediction. Thus, it can be difficult to define the information content of a data set used in model evaluation and any consequent measures of belief or verisimilitude. A limit of acceptability approach to model evaluation is suggested as a way of testing models, implying that thought is required to define critical experiments that will allow models as hypotheses to be adequately differentiated. (C) 2012 Published by Elsevier Masson SAS on behalf of Academie des sciences.

AB - The environmental modeller faces a dilemma. Science often demands that more and more process representations are incorporated into models (particularly to avoid the possibility of making missing process errors in predicting future response). Testing the causal representations in environmental models (as multiple working hypotheses about the functioning of environmental systems) then depends on specifying boundary conditions and model parameters adequately. This will always be difficult in applications to a real system because of the heterogeneities, non-stationarities, complexities and epistemic uncertainties inherent in environmental prediction. Thus, it can be difficult to define the information content of a data set used in model evaluation and any consequent measures of belief or verisimilitude. A limit of acceptability approach to model evaluation is suggested as a way of testing models, implying that thought is required to define critical experiments that will allow models as hypotheses to be adequately differentiated. (C) 2012 Published by Elsevier Masson SAS on behalf of Academie des sciences.

KW - SYSTEMS

KW - BALANCE

KW - VALIDATION

KW - Modelling philosophy

KW - Critical experiments

KW - HYDROLOGICAL MODELS

KW - UNIFYING FRAMEWORK

KW - INSTRUMENTALISM

KW - PREDICTION

KW - CALIBRATION

KW - Limits of acceptability

KW - Environmental prediction

KW - UNCERTAINTY

KW - Model evaluation

KW - Epistemic uncertainties

KW - WATERSHED THERMODYNAMICS

U2 - 10.1016/j.crte.2012.01.005

DO - 10.1016/j.crte.2012.01.005

M3 - Journal article

VL - 344

SP - 77

EP - 88

JO - Comptes Rendus Géoscience

JF - Comptes Rendus Géoscience

SN - 1631-0713

IS - 2

ER -