Comparing Deterministic and Stochastic Methods in Geospatial Analysis of Groundwater Fluoride Concentration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dental and skeletal fluorosis caused by consuming high-fluoride groundwater has been reported over several decades globally. Prediction maps to estimate the fluoride contaminated area rely on interpolation methods. This study presents a comparison of the accuracy of nine spatial interpolation methods in predicting the fluoride in groundwater. Leave-one-out cross-validation (LOOCV), hold-out validation and validation with an independent dataset were used to assess the precision of the interpolation methods. This is the first study on fluoride with a large dataset (N = 13,585) applied at the regional level in India. Our findings showed that the inverse distance weighted (IDW) algorithm outperformed other methods in terms of less discrepancy between measured and predicted fluoride. IDW and local polynomial interpolation (LPI) were the only methods to predict contaminated areas (fluoride > 1.5 mg/L). However, the area estimated by the typical assessment of the percentage of unsuitable samples was much higher (6.1%) compared to that estimated by IDW (0.2%) and LPI (0.2%). LOOCV provided viable results than the other two validation methods. Interpolation methods are accompanied with uncertainty which are regulated by the sample size, sample density, sample distribution, minimum and maximum measured concentrations, smoothing and border effects. Drawing a comparison among variegated interpolation methods capturing a wide range of prediction uncertainty is suggested rather than relying on one method exclusively. The high-fluoride areas identified in this study can be used by the Government in planning remediation actions.
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 | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".