Spatial Analysis of Land Use Impact on Ground Water Nitrate Concentrations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In spatial analyses of causes or health effects of environmental pollutants, small units of analyses are usually preferred for internal environmental homogeneity reasons but can only be done when fine resolution data are available for most units. Objectives of this study were to determine which land use practices were spatially associated with ground water nitrate concentrations across Prince Edward Island (PEI), Canada, and which spatial aggregation is the preferred unit of analyses. Nitrate concentrations were determined for 4855 samples from private wells. Validated field-by-field land use data were available. Average nitrate concentration and percentage of area for the 14 major land use categories in PEI were determined for each of three spatial aggregations: watersheds based on topography and hydrology; freeform polygon boundaries based on similar neighboring nitrate concentrations; and 500-m buffer zones around each well. Results showed that the percentages of potato, grain, and hay coverage were positive predictors of ground water nitrate concentrations. Percentage of blueberry was a marginally significant negative predictor in the watershed and freeform polygon models, and percentage of residential coverage was a positive predictor in the freeform polygon and buffer zone models. Spatial autocorrelation was present in the freeform polygon and buffer zone models even after land use was taken into account. In conclusion, analyses based on watersheds produced the best predictive model with the percentages of land cover of potato, hay, and grain being significantly associated with ground water nitrate concentrations, and the percentages of blueberry, clear-cut woodland, and other agriculture being marginally significant.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".