MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Review of Sensing Systems and Their Need for Environmental Water Monitoring

2016· review· en· W2743549042 on OpenAlexaff
Leo Huan-Hsuan Hsu, Aditya Aryasomayajula, P. Ravi Selvaganapathy

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Reviews in Biomedical Engineering · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater Quality Monitoring Technologies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWater qualityEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental monitoringHazardous wasteWater pollutionHuman healthWater resourcesPollutionContaminationWater contaminationWatershedComputer scienceEnvironmental engineeringWaste managementEngineeringEnvironmental chemistryChemistryEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Water is a valuable natural resource and is needed to sustain human life. Water pollution significantly jeopardizes clean drinking water supplies, it is hazardous to human health, and it inhibits economic development. Well-designed sensors that can continuously monitor water quality during transport and identify contaminants in the watershed help effectively control pollution and thereby manage water resources. However, the commercially available sensors are expensive and require frequent maintenance. These limitations often make these sensors inadequate for continuous water monitoring applications. This review evaluates many sensors based on colorimetric, electrochemical, and optical sensors. Sensors suitable for estimating the amount of dissolved oxygen, nitrates, chlorine, and phosphates are presented. A review of recently developed high quality sensors for measuring the previously mentioned components of water is also presented. Future directions in this area of developing high quality sensors for water monitoring are discussed.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.004

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.274 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations14
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Reviews in Biomedical EngineeringSame topicWater Quality Monitoring TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207