MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Mining Spatial Patterns of Distribution of Uranium in Surface and Ground Waters in Ukraine

2019· book-chapter· en· W4245289889 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueWaste Management · 2019
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicSpatial and Panel Data Analysis
Canadian institutionsVancouver Island University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpatial distributionSpatial ecologySpatial analysisGroundwaterScale (ratio)Distribution (mathematics)UraniumGeographyCartographyEnvironmental scienceRemote sensingGeologyEcologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A variety of geovisualization and spatial statistical methods can reveal spatial patterns in the distribution of chemical elements in surface and groundwater, and also identify major factors which define those patterns. This chapter describes a combination of modeling techniques to enhance understanding of large-scale spatial distribution of uranium in groundwater in Ukraine, by linking spatial patterns of several indicators and predictors. Factor, correlation, and regression analysis, including their spatial implementations, were used to describe the impacts of several environmental variables on spatial distribution of uranium. Local factor analysis (or Geographically Weighted Factor Analysis, GWFA) was proposed to identify major environmental factors which define the distribution of uranium, and to discover and map their spatial relationships. The study resulted in a series of maps to help visualize and explore the relationships between uranium and several environmental indicators.

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 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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.428
Threshold uncertainty score0.791

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.170 · 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