A comprehensive review of water quality indices for lotic and lentic ecosystems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Freshwater resources play a pivotal role in sustaining life and meeting various domestic, agricultural, economic, and industrial demands. As such, there is a significant need to monitor the water quality of these resources. Water quality index (WQI) models have gradually gained popularity since their maiden introduction in the 1960s for evaluating and classifying the water quality of aquatic ecosystems. WQIs transform complex water quality data into a single dimensionless number to enable accessible communication of the water quality status of water resource ecosystems. To screen relevant articles, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) method was employed to include or exclude articles. A total of 17 peer-reviewed articles were used in the final paper synthesis. Among the reviewed WQIs, only the Canadian Council for Ministers of the Environment (CCME) index, Irish water quality index (IEWQI) and Hahn index were used to assess both lotic and lentic ecosystems. Furthermore, the CCME index is the only exception from rigidity because it does not specify parameters to select. Except for the West-Java WQI and the IEWQI, none of the reviewed WQI performed sensitivity and uncertainty analysis to improve the acceptability and reliability of the WQI. It has been proven that all stages of WQI development have a level of uncertainty which can be determined using statistical and machine learning tools. Extreme gradient boosting (XGB) has been reported as an effective machine learning tool to deal with uncertainties during parameter selection, the establishment of parameter weights, and determining accurate classification schemes. Considering the IEWQI model architecture and its effectiveness in coastal and transitional waters, this review recommends that future research in lotic or lentic ecosystems focus on addressing the underlying uncertainty issues associated with the WQI model in addition to the use of machine learning techniques to improve the predictive accuracy and robustness and increase the domain of application.
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 | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".