Meta-Evaluation of Water Quality Indices. Application into Groundwater Resources
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Until now, there was no simple procedure to test the performance of water quality indices (WQIs) or, in other words, to perform their meta-evaluation. The purpose of this study is to provide a meta-evaluation approach of two widely used WQIs and suggestions for selecting one or both of them for application in groundwater quality assessment as proposed by the European Union. The meta-evaluation concept is based on testing the performance of two widely known WQIs by applying classification of Water Framework Directive (WFD; 2000/60/EC) and Groundwater Directive (GWD; 2006/118/EC) which was used as a reference. The Canadian Council of Ministers of Environment (CCME) and National Sanitation Foundation (NSF-WQI) have been selected for evaluation. These WQIs were applied in an agricultural area of the Mediterranean region where six sub-datasets for an entire hydrological year were available. This study uses all the available water quality data (52 monitoring stations × 2 sampling periods × 15 parameters) which is systematically collected at the area studied. The CCME-WQI is a rather strict index since it estimates statistically significantly lower values than the NSF-WQI. Based on the performance of the examined indices, it is shown that, mostly, the CCME-WQI classification findings are close to those of the GWD.
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 | 0.062 | 0.076 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".