Statistical tools for water quality assessment and monitoring in river ecosystems – a scoping review and recommendations for data analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Robust scientific inference is crucial to ensure evidence-based decision making. Accordingly, the selection of appropriate statistical tools and experimental designs is integral to achieve accuracy from data analytical processes. Environmental monitoring of water quality has become increasingly common and widespread as a result of technological advances, leading to an abundance of datasets. We conducted a scoping review of the water quality literature and found that correlation and linear regression are by far the most used statistical tools. However, the accuracy of inferences drawn from ordinary least squares (OLS) techniques depends on a set of assumptions, most prominently: (a) independence among observations, (b) normally distributed errors, (c) equal variances of errors, and (d) balanced designs. Environmental data, however, are often faced with temporal and spatial dependencies, and unbalanced designs, thus making OLS techniques not suitable to provide valid statistical inferences. Generalized least squares (GLS), linear mixed-effect models (LMMs), and generalized linear mixed-effect models (GLMMs), as well as Bayesian data analyses, have been developed to better tackle these problems. Recent progress in the development of statistical software has made these approaches more accessible and user-friendly. We provide a high-level summary and practical guidance for those statistical techniques.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.055 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 it