A Methodology for Clustering Lakes in Alberta on the basis of Water Quality Parameters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this study, a methodology for clustering 18 lakes in Alberta, Canada using the data of 19 water quality parameters for a period of 11 years (1988–2002) is presented. The methods consist of (i) principal component analysis (PCA) to determine the dominant water quality parameters, (ii) cluster analysis techniques to develop the characteristics of the clusters, and (iii) pattern‐match lakes to determine the appropriate cluster for each of the lakes. The PCA revealed that three principal components (PCs) were able to explain ∼88% of the variability and the dominant water quality parameters were total dissolved solids, total phosphorus, and chlorophyll‐a. We obtained five clusters for the period 1994–1997 by using the dominant parameters with water quality deteriorating as the cluster number increased from 1 to 5. Upon matching cluster patterns with the entire dataset, it was observed that some of the lakes belonged to the same cluster all the time (e.g., cluster 1 for lakes Elkwater, Gregg, and Jarvis; cluster 3 for Sturgeon; cluster 4 for Moonshine; and cluster 5 for Saskatoon), while others changed with time. This methodology could be applied in other regions of the world to identify the most suitable source waters and prioritize their management. It could be helpful to analyze the natural controlling processes, pollution types, impact of seasonal changes and overall quality of source waters. This methodology could be used for monitoring water bodies in a cost effective and efficient way by sampling only less number of dominant parameters instead of using a large set of parameters.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".