A Review of Control Charts and Exploring Their Utility for Regional Environmental Monitoring Programs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Industrial control charts are used in manufacturing to quickly and robustly indicate the status of production and to prompt any necessary corrective actions. The library of tools available for these tasks has grown over time and many have been used in other disciplines with similar objectives, including environmental monitoring. While the utility of control charts in environmental monitoring has been recognized, and the tools have already been used in many individual studies, they may be underutilized in some types of programs. For example, control charts may be especially useful for reporting and evaluating data from regional surveillance monitoring programs, but they are not yet routinely used. The purpose of this study was to promote the use of control charts in regional environmental monitoring by surveying the literature for control charting techniques suitable for the various types of data available from large programs measuring multiple indicators at multiple locations across various physical environments. Example datasets were obtained for Canada’s Oil Sands Region, including water quality, air quality, facility production and performance, and bird communities, and were analyzed using univariate (e.g., x-bar) and multivariate (e.g., Hotelling’s T2) control charts. The control charts indicated multiple instances of unexpected observations and highlighted subtle patterns in all of the example data. While control charts are not uniquely able to identify potentially relevant patterns in data and can be challenging to apply in some monitoring analyses, this work emphasizes the broad utility of the tools for straightforwardly presenting the results from standardized and routine surveillance monitoring.
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 | 0.018 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".