Modified-DRASTIC, modified-SINTACS and SI methods for groundwater vulnerability assessment in the southern Tehran aquifer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to modify the SINTACS and DRASTIC models with a land-use (LU) layer and compares the modified-DRASTIC, modified-SINTACS and SI methods for groundwater vulnerability assessment (GVA) in the southern Tehran aquifer, Iran. Single parameter sensitivity analysis (SPSA) served to determine the most significant parameters for the modified-DRASTIC, modified-SINTACS and SI approaches, and to revise model weights from "theoretical" to "effective." The inherent implementation of LU in the SI model may explain its better performance compared to unenhanced versions of DRASTIC and SINTACS models. Validation of all models, using nitrate concentrations from 20 wells within the study area, showed the modified-SINTACS model to outperform other models. The SPSA showed that the vadose zone and LU strongly influenced the modified-DRASTIC and modified-SINTACS models, while SI was strongly influenced by aquifer media and LU. To improve performance, models were implemented using "effective" instead of "theoretical" weights. Model robustness was assessed using nitrate concentrations in the aquifer and the outcomes confirmed the positive impact of using "effective" versus "theoretical" weights in the models. Modified-SINTACS showed the strongest correlation between nitrate and the vulnerability index (coefficient of determination = 0.75). Application of the modified-SINTACS while using "effective" weights, led to the conclusion that 19.6%, 55.2%, 23.4%, and 1.6% of the study area housed very high, high, moderate and low vulnerability zones, respectively.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".