MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1531146726 · doi:10.1109/iccse.2015.7250200

Keynote address I: Sensing issues in the automated monitoring of the quality of drinking water

2015· article· en· W1531146726 on OpenAlexaff
Clarence W. de Silva

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater Quality Monitoring Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWater qualityComputer scienceWireless sensor networkSanitationAutomationKey (lock)Environmental monitoringProcess (computing)MicrocontrollerQuality (philosophy)Robustness (evolution)Risk analysis (engineering)Remote sensingComputer securityEngineeringEmbedded systemBusinessEnvironmental engineeringGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This talk will address several important aspects of sensing and representation of water quality in a spatiotemporal manner for automation of the entire process. The addressed key issues are: (a) Automated and remote sensing issues of water quality monitoring; (b) Signal processing and sensory data process; (c) Development of an effective water quality index; (d) Network architecture of the water quality monitoring system. Water comes into contact with minerals, salt, vegetation, toxic chemicals, and biological waste, and is never completely pure. Many of these contaminants may pose health risks. About 3.4 million people die every year in the world due to waterborne diseases, and poor sanitation. Regular monitoring of the quality of drinking water and taking proper actions to improve its quality is important for healthy living. This is particularly important in rural areas and underprivileged communities. Our proposed system consists of multiple sensor nodes that are geographically distributed and have the capability of wireless communication to local microcontrollers. After some basic processing, the gathered information is transmitted by the microcontrollers to a central assessment unit. The system analyzes the geographic and temporal information and provides advisories, warnings, trends, forecasts, and suggested actions. Robustness, speed, low-cost, and user-friendliness are key features of the developed system. The talk will present theoretical, research, and practical aspects of the proposed developments.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.088

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0260.014

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.

Opus teacher head0.103
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.244 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicWater Quality Monitoring TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207