Modification of the DRASTIC Framework for Mapping Groundwater Vulnerability Zones
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The DRASTIC technique is commonly used to assess groundwater vulnerability. The main disadvantage of the DRASTIC method is the difficulty associated with identifying appropriate ratings and weight assignments for each parameter. To mitigate this issue, ratings and weights can be approximated using different methods appropriate to the conditions of the study area. In this study, different linear (i.e., Wilcoxon test and statistical approaches) and nonlinear (Genetic algorithm [GA]) modifications for calibration of the DRASTIC framework using nitrate (NO 3 ) concentrations were compared through the preparation of groundwater vulnerability maps of the Meshqin‐Shahr plain, Iran. Twenty‐two groundwater samples were collected from wells in the study area, and their respective NO 3 concentrations were used to modify the ratings and weights of the DRASTIC parameters. The areas found to have the highest vulnerability were in the eastern, central, and western regions of the plain. Results showed that the modified DRASTIC frameworks performed well, compared to the unmodified DRASTIC. When measured NO 3 concentrations were correlated with the vulnerability indices produced by each method, the unmodified DRASTIC method performed most poorly, and the Wilcoxon–GA–DRASTIC method proved optimal. Compared to the unmodified DRASTIC method with an R 2 of 0.22, the Wilcoxon–GA–DRASTIC obtained a maximum R 2 value of 0.78. Modification of DRASTIC parameter ratings was found to be more efficient than the modification of the weights in establishing an accurately calibrated DRASTIC framework. However, modification of parameter ratings and weights together increased the R 2 value to the highest degree.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".