MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4381839875 · doi:10.3390/hydrology10050110

Predicting Optical Water Quality Indicators from Remote Sensing Using Machine Learning Algorithms in Tropical Highlands of Ethiopia

2023· article· en· W4381839875 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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueHydrology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater Quality Monitoring Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInternational Development Research CentreStyrelsen för Internationellt Utvecklingssamarbete
KeywordsMean squared errorRandom forestSupport vector machineWater qualityAlgorithmAdaBoostArtificial neural networkRegressionMachine learningStatisticsRegression analysisMathematicsRemote sensingArtificial intelligenceEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceGeographyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Water quality degradation of freshwater bodies is a concern worldwide, particularly in Africa, where data are scarce and standard water quality monitoring is expensive. This study explored the use of remote sensing imagery and machine learning (ML) algorithms as an alternative to standard field measuring for monitoring water quality in large and remote areas constrained by logistics and finance. Six machine learning (ML) algorithms integrated with Landsat 8 imagery were evaluated for their accuracy in predicting three optically active water quality indicators observed monthly in the period from August 2016 to April 2022: turbidity (TUR), total dissolved solids (TDS) and Chlorophyll a (Chl-a). The six ML algorithms studied were the artificial neural network (ANN), support vector machine regression (SVM), random forest regression (RF), XGBoost regression (XGB), AdaBoost regression (AB), and gradient boosting regression (GB) algorithms. XGB performed best at predicting Chl-a, with an R2 of 0.78, Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE) of 0.78, mean absolute relative error (MARE) of 0.082 and root mean squared error (RMSE) of 9.79 µg/L. RF performed best at predicting TDS (with an R2 of 0.79, NSE of 0.80, MARE of 0.082, and RMSE of 12.30 mg/L) and TUR (with an R2 of 0.80, NSE of 0.81, and MARE of 0.072 and RMSE of 7.82 NTU). The main challenges were data size, sampling frequency, and sampling resolution. To overcome the data limitation, we used a K-fold cross validation technique that could obtain the most out of the limited data to build a robust model. Furthermore, we also employed stratified sampling techniques to improve the ML modeling for turbidity. Thus, this study shows the possibility of monitoring water quality in large freshwater bodies with limited observed data using remote sensing integrated with ML algorithms, potentially enhancing decision making.

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)0.001
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 score0.395
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.258 · 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