MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2055366723 · doi:10.1039/c2em30372h

Coupling geostatistical approaches with PCA and fuzzy optimal model (FOM) for the integrated assessment of sampling locations of water quality monitoring networks (WQMNs)

2012· article· en· W2055366723 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Chunping Ou, André St‐Hilaire, Taha B. M. J. Ouarda, F. Malcolm Conly, Nicole Armstrong, Bahaa Khalil, Sandra Proulx‐McInnis

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Monitoring · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil Geostatistics and Mapping
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New BrunswickEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
FundersFisheries and Oceans Canada
KeywordsKrigingSampling (signal processing)Principal component analysisData miningWater qualityFuzzy logicGeostatisticsComputer scienceEnvironmental scienceStatisticsMathematicsMachine learningArtificial intelligenceSpatial variability

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The assessment of the adequacy of sampling locations is an important aspect in the validation of an effective and efficient water quality monitoring network. Two geostatistical approaches (e.g., kriging and Moran's I) are presented to assess multiple sampling locations. A flexible and comprehensive framework was developed for the selection of multiple sampling locations of multiple variables which was accomplished by coupling geostatistical approaches with principal component analysis (PCA) and fuzzy optimal model (FOM). The FOM was used in the integrated assessment of both multiple principal components and multiple geostatistical approaches. These integrated methods were successfully applied to the assessment of two independent water quality monitoring networks (WQMNs) of Lake Winnipeg, Canada, which respectively included 14 and 30 stations from 2006 to 2010.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.307
Threshold uncertainty score0.440

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations25
Published2012
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Environmental MonitoringSame topicSoil Geostatistics and MappingFrench-language works237,207