Assessing statistical and spatial validity of sediment survey design and sampling densities: examples from Lake Erie
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Spatial interpolation methods translate sediment contamination point data into informative area-based visualizations. Lake Erie was first sampled in 1971 based on a survey grid of 263 locations. Due to procedural costs, the 2014 survey was reduced to 34 sampling locations mostly located in deep offshore regions of the lake. Using the 1971 dataset, this study identifies the minimum sampling density at which statistically valid, and spatially accurate predictions can be made using ordinary kriging. Randomly down-sampled subsets at 10% intervals of the 1971 survey were created to include at least one set of data points with a smaller sample size than that of the 2014 dataset. Regression analyses of predicted contamination values assessed spatial autocorrelation between kriged surfaces created from the down-sampled subsets and the original dataset. Subsets at 10% and 20% of the original data density accurately predicted 51% and 75% (respectively) of the original dataset's predictions. Subsets representing 70%, 80% and 90% of the original data density accurately predicted 88%, 90% and 97% of the original dataset's predictions. Although all subsets proved to be statistically valid, sampling densities below 0.002 locations/km2 are likely to create very generalized contamination maps from which environmental decisions might not be justified.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".