MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Association rules and regression linear model of the groundwater population by the evaluation of uranium

2019· article· en· W2915249159 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Iing Lukman, Natalina Natalina

Bibliographic record

VenueMATEC Web of Conferences · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Mining Algorithms and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlkalinityLinear regressionUraniumRegression analysisVariablesPopulationGroundwaterVariable (mathematics)StatisticsRegressionMathematicsLinear modelChemistryGeologyDemographyMaterials scienceMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The uranium available more on groundwater samples of certain types on the total alkalinity were relatively the same. But, the content of the uranium was higher in the samples. The multiple linear regression for pH as a dependent variable showed that the pH negatively correlated to the uranium, but the uranium was not significant for the linear regression model. The data of groundwater population from the samples of 127 with 12 variables of measurement of the Energy Department of the United States of America resulted in those association rules and linear regression models. The data has five factors of Producing horizon namely Ogallala Formation (TPO), Dockum Formation (TRD), Quartermaster Group (POQ), Whitehorse and Cloud Chief Group (PGWC), El Reno Group and Blaine Formation (PGEB). The step-wise linear regression for each of the five producing horizon codes was fitted to the data. Then, the regression models for each variable of producing horizon were obtained if pH was the dependent variable. If the Uranium was a dependent variable, then the regression models obtained were four only, with the model for PGEB was not able to be made. When pH as a dependent variable, it was depended upon Boron, Total alkalinity, and Bicarbonate.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMATEC Web of ConferencesSame topicData Mining Algorithms and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207