Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 208

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

Hybrid Approach for Addressing Uncertainty in Risk Assessments

Guyonnet, Dominique, Bourgine, Bernard, Dubois, Didier, Fargier, Hélène, Co⁁me, Bernard, Chilès, Jean-Paul·2003·Journal of Environmental Engineering
DOI 10.1061/(asce)0733-9372(2003)129:1(68

Abstract

Parameter uncertainty is a major aspect of the model-based estimation of the risk of human exposure to pollutants. The Monte Carlo method, which applies probability theory to address model parameter uncertainty, relies on a statistical representation of available information. In recent years, other uncertainty theories have been proposed as alternative approaches to address model parameter uncertainty in situations where available information is insufficient to identify statistically representative probability distributions, due in particular to data scarcity. The simplest such theory is possibility theory, which uses so-called fuzzy numbers to represent model parameter uncertainty. In practice, it may occur that certain model parameters can be reasonably represented by probability distributions, because there are sufficient data available to substantiate such distributions by statistical analysis, while others are better represented by fuzzy numbers (due to data scarcity). The question then arises as to how these two modes of representation of model parameter uncertainty can be combined for the purpose of estimating the risk of exposure. This paper proposes an approach (termed a hybrid approach) which combines Monte Carlo random sampling of probability distribution functions with fuzzy calculus. The approach is applied to a real case of estimation of human exposure, via vegetable consumption, to cadmium present in the surficial soils of an industrial site located in the north of France. The application illustrates the potential of the proposed approach, which allows the uncertainty affecting model parameters to be represented in a way that is consistent with the information at hand. Also, because the hybrid approach takes advantage of the “rich” information provided by probability distributions, while retaining the conservative character of fuzzy calculus, it is believed to hold value in terms of a “reasonable” application of the precautionary principle.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1061/(asce)0733-9372(2003)129:1(68)

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 208

Metadata

Authors
Guyonnet, D., Bourgine, B., Dubois, D., Fargier, H., Co⁁me, B., & Chilès, J.-P.
Venue
Journal of Environmental Engineering
Published
2003-01
Volume
129
Issue
1
Pages
68-78
ISSN
  • 0733-9372 (ISSN-L)
  • 1943-7870
DOI
10.1061/(asce)0733-9372(2003)129:1(68
OpenAlex
W1974156822
Cited by
208
References
1
FWCI
3.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Hybrid Approach for Addressing Uncertainty in Risk Assessments. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1061/(asce)0733-9372(2003)129:1(68
The paper
Guyonnet, D., Bourgine, B., Dubois, D., Fargier, H., Co⁁me, B., & Chilès, J.-P. (2003). Hybrid Approach for Addressing Uncertainty in Risk Assessments. Journal of Environmental Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)0733-9372(2003)129%3A1(68

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.