CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,118Bayesian Modeling and Causal InferenceCognitive Science and MappingRisk and Safety Analysis

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Advantages and challenges of Bayesian networks in environmental modelling

Uusitalo, Laura·2007·Ecological Modelling
DOI 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2006.11.033
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2006.11.033

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • RBN has advantages such as modelling uncertain and complex domains.

    “RBN has been selected to build up the risk model in this paper due to its advantages such as modelling uncertain and complex domains (Uusitalo, 2007;Khan et al., 2021;Chen et al., 2022).”

    From A BN driven FMEA approach to assess maritime cybersecurity risks (2023) · cites this paper as Uusitalo, 2007

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 43

  1. Armstrong, 1975, The use of the decomposition principle in making judgments, Org. Behav. Hum. Perform., 14, 257, 10.1016/0030-5073(75)90028-8 · DOI
  2. Borsuk, 2004, A Bayesian network of eutrophication models for synthesis, prediction, and uncertainty analysis, Ecol. Model., 173, 219, 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2003.08.020 · DOI
  3. Bromley, 2005, The use of Hugin® to develop Bayesian networks as an aid to integrated water resource planning, Environ. Model. Software, 20, 231, 10.1016/j.envsoft.2003.12.021 · DOI
  4. Chan, 2002, When do numbers really matter?, J. Artif. Intell. Res., 17, 265, 10.1613/jair.967 · DOI
  5. Charniak, 1991, Bayesian networks without tears, AI Mag., 12, 50
  6. Clemen, 1999, Combining probability distributions from experts in risk analysis, Risk Anal., 19, 187, 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1999.tb00399.x · DOI
  7. Dong, 1997, Text analysis for constructing design representations, Artif. Intell. Eng., 11, 65, 10.1016/S0954-1810(96)00036-2 · DOI
  8. Dougherty, J., Kohavi, R., Sahami, M., 1995. Supervised and unsupervised discretization of continuous features. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML). Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco, CA. · DOI
  9. Druzdzel, 2000, Building probabilistic networks: where do the numbers come from?—a guide to the literature, Trans. Knowledge Data Eng., 12, 481, 10.1109/TKDE.2000.868901 · DOI
  10. Ellison, 2004, Bayesian inference in ecology, Ecol. Lett., 7, 509, 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2004.00603.x · DOI
  11. Garbolino, 2002, Evaluation of scientific evidence using Bayesian networks, Forensic Sci. Int., 125, 149, 10.1016/S0379-0738(01)00642-9 · DOI
  12. Gilks, 1994, A language and program for complex Bayesian modelling, The Statistician, 43, 169, 10.2307/2348941 · DOI
  13. Hammond, 2004, A recipe for Bayesian network driven stock assessment, Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci., 61, 1647, 10.1139/f04-107 · DOI
  14. Heckerman, D., 1995. A tutorial on learning with Bayesian networks. Technical report MSR-TR-95-06, Microsoft Research. · DOI
  15. Heckerman, 1995, Bayesian networks, Commun. ACM, 38, 27, 10.1145/203330.203336 · DOI
  16. Heckerman, 1995, Learning Bayesian networks: the combination of knowledge and statistical data, Machine Learning, 20, 197, 10.1007/BF00994016 · DOI
  17. Kahn, 1997, Construction of a Bayesian network for mammographic diagnosis of breast cancer, Computers Biol. Med., 27, 19, 10.1016/S0010-4825(96)00039-X · DOI
  18. Keith, 1996, When is it appropriate to combine expert judgments?, Clim. Change, 33, 139, 10.1007/BF00140244 · DOI
  19. Kontkanen, P., Myllymäki, P., Silander, T., Tirri, H., 1997a. Comparing predictive inference methods for discrete domains. In: Proceedings of the sixth International Workshop on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, Ft. Lauderdale, USA, pp. 311–318.
  20. Kontkanen, P., Myllymäki, P., Silander, T., Tirri, H., 1997b. A Bayesian approach to discretization. In: Proceedings of the European Symposium on Intelligent Techniques, Bari, Italy, pp. 265–268.
  21. Kuikka, 1997, Uncertainties of climatic change impacts in Finnish watersheds: a Bayesian network analysis of expert knowledge, Boreal Environ. Res., 2, 109
  22. Kuikka, 1999, Modeling environmentally driven uncertainties in Baltic cod (Gadus morhua) management by Bayesian influence diagrams, Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci., 56, 629, 10.1139/f98-206 · DOI
  23. Kurgan, L., Cios, K.J., 2001. Discretization algorithm that uses class-attribute interdependence maximization. In: Proceedings of the 2001 International Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IC-AI 2001), Las Vegas, Nevada, pp. 980–987.
  24. Laurizen, 1995, The EM algorithm for graphical association models with missing data, Computat. Stat. Data Anal., 19, 191, 10.1016/0167-9473(93)E0056-A · DOI
  25. Lee, 1997, Population viability assessment of salmonids by using probabilistic networks, N. Am. J. Fish. Manage., 17, 1144, 10.1577/1548-8675(1997)017<1144:PVAOSB>2.3.CO;2 · DOI
  26. Little, 2004, Information flow among fishing vessels modelled using a Bayesian network, Environ. Modell. Software, 19, 27, 10.1016/S1364-8152(03)00100-2 · DOI
  27. Lucas, 2000, A probabilistic and decision-theoretic approach to the management of infectious disease at the ICU, Artif. Intell. Med., 19, 251, 10.1016/S0933-3657(00)00048-8 · DOI
  28. Madsen, 2005, The Hugin tool for probabilistic graphical models, Int. J. Artif. Intell. Tools, 14, 507, 10.1142/S0218213005002235 · DOI
  29. Marcot, 2001, Using Bayesian Belief Networks to evaluate fish and wildlife population viability under land management alternatives from an environmental impact statement, Forest Ecol. Manage., 153, 29, 10.1016/S0378-1127(01)00452-2 · DOI
  30. Monti, S., Cooper, G.F., 1998. A latent variable model for multivariate discretization. Proceedings of 14th Conference of Uncertainty in AI, Madison, WI, pp. 404–413.
  31. Myllymäki, 2002, B-Course: a web-based tool for Bayesian and causal data analysis, Int. J. Artif. Intell. Tools, 11, 369, 10.1142/S0218213002000940 · DOI
  32. Papaconstantinou, 1998, An expert system for assigning patients into clinical trials based on Bayesian networks, J. Med. Syst., 22, 189, 10.1023/A:1022667800953 · DOI
  33. Pellikka, 2005, The role of game management in wildlife populations: uncertainty analysis of expert knowledge, Eur. J. Wildlife Res., 51, 48, 10.1007/s10344-004-0073-9 · DOI
  34. Reckhow, 1999, Water quality prediction and probability network models, Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci., 56, 1150, 10.1139/cjfas-56-7-1150 · DOI
  35. Spiegelhalter, 1993, Bayesian analysis in expert systems, Stat. Sci., 8, 219, 10.1214/ss/1177010888 · DOI
  36. Titus, 1996, The risk of sea level rise, Clim. Change, 33, 151, 10.1007/BF00140246 · DOI
  37. Uusitalo, 2005, Estimation of Atlantic salmon smolt carrying capacity of rivers using expert knowledge, ICES J. Marine Sci., 62, 708, 10.1016/j.icesjms.2005.02.005 · DOI
  38. Van der Gaag, 1996, Bayesian belief networks: odds and ends, Computer J., 39, 97, 10.1093/comjnl/39.2.97 · DOI
  39. Varis, 1997, Bayesian decision analysis for environmental and resource management, Environ. Modell. Software, 12, 177, 10.1016/S1364-8152(97)00008-X · DOI
  40. Varis, 1990, Bayesian influence diagram approach to complex environmental management including observational design, Computat. Stat. Data Anal., 9, 77, 10.1016/0167-9473(90)90072-P · DOI
  41. Varis, 1997, Joint use of multiple environmental assessment models by a Bayesian meta-model: the Baltic salmon case, Ecol. Model., 102, 341, 10.1016/S0304-3800(97)00068-9 · DOI
  42. Wikle, 2003, Hierarchical Bayesian models for predicting the spread of ecological processes, Ecology, 84, 1382, 10.1890/0012-9658(2003)084[1382:HBMFPT]2.0.CO;2 · DOI
  43. Wooldridge, 2004, Learning to predict large-scale coral bleaching from past events: a Bayesian approach using remotely sensed data, in-situ data, and environmental proxies, Coral Reefs, 23, 96, 10.1007/s00338-003-0361-y · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Uusitalo, L.
Affiliations
University of Helsinki (FI)
Corresponding author
Uusitalo, Laura
ORCID
Uusitalo, Laura
Venue
Ecological Modelling
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2007-05
Volume
203
Issue
3-4
Pages
312-318
ISSN
0304-3800 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2006.11.033
OpenAlex
W2150798249
Cited by
1,118
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 39 · 2025: 49 · 2024: 51 · 2023: 75 · 2022: 103 · 2021: 90 · 2020: 94 · 2019: 88 · 2018: 73 · 2017: 71 · 2016: 81 · 2015: 64 · 2014: 49 · 2013: 44 · 2012: 41
FWCI
23.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Ecological Modelling (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Funders
Jenny ja Antti Wihurin Rahasto
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Bayesian Modeling and Causal Inference
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Cognitive Science and Mapping
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality › Risk and Safety Analysis
Keywords
Bayesian networks, environmental modeling, environmental management, uncertainty analysis, ecosystem modeling

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review