MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2977598638 · doi:10.3390/app9194157

Optimization of River and Lake Monitoring Programs Using a Participative Approach and an Intelligent Decision-Support System

2019· article· en· W2977598638 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Sonja Behmel, M. Damour, Ralf Ludwig, Manuel J. Rodríguez

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Sciences · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater Quality and Pollution Assessment
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversité Laval
KeywordsDecision support systemComputer scienceProcess (computing)Operations researchManagement scienceData miningEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We developed a holistic intelligent decision-support system (IDSS) to provide decision-support for all steps in planning, managing and optimizing water quality monitoring programs (WQMPs). The IDSS is connected to a previously developed database, EnkiTM. The IDSS integrates tacit and explicit knowledge on WQMPs to standardize decision making and to make decisions transparent and transferable. The optimization features of the IDSS were tested on a lake and a river WQMP from two case studies in Canada. We illustrate how the IDSS provides decision support to understanding the underlying rationale of the existing WQMPs, validating and storing data, selecting optimization procedures proposed in the literature, applying the optimization procedures and finalizing the optimization procedure. We demonstrated that the IDSS/EnkiTM is necessary to take and document decisions during all phases of a WQMP to obtain a clear idea of when and why changes are made and determine actionable tasks in the optimization process.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.415
Threshold uncertainty score0.224

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.075
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations7
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied SciencesSame topicWater Quality and Pollution AssessmentFrench-language works237,207