MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1570887500 · doi:10.2166/wqrjc.2015.009

Optimizing water quality sampling through application of real time ionic concentration regression models

2015· article· en· W1570887500 on OpenAlexaffabout
S.M. Rajiur Rahman, Renée Paterson

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Quality Research Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater Quality and Resources Studies
Canadian institutionsDepartment of Environment and Conservation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSampling (signal processing)Water qualityEnvironmental scienceChlorideHydrology (agriculture)ChemistryComputer scienceGeologyGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Water Resources Management Division of the Department of Environment and Conservation performs routine water sampling to measure the physical and chemical parameters of select water bodies in Newfoundland and Labrador. Ionic concentration parameter measurement is performed during routine water sampling to complement some of the key indicator parameters measured in real time at these select water bodies. The collection, laboratory analysis and measurement of water samples is a time consuming process. Some of the common conducting ions measured during routine sampling are sodium, calcium, chloride and sulphate. These conducting ions can be estimated using continuously measured specific conductance after observing the effect of flow. The estimated measurement will help identify whether any local stressors are affecting the quality of water at a given point in time and hence save time and resources in performing routine sampling. This can also be applied in remote locations where routine sampling is not feasible. This paper compares four water bodies on the island part of Newfoundland and Labrador and estimates the ionic concentration using continuously measured specific conductance.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.233
Threshold uncertainty score0.648

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.372
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.060 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWater Quality Research JournalSame topicWater Quality and Resources StudiesFrench-language works237,207