Risk assessment of drinking water intake contamination from agricultural activities using a Bayesian network
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Agricultural activities can result in the contamination of surface runoff with pathogens, pesticides, and nutrients. These pollutants can enter surface water bodies in two ways: by direct discharge into surface waters or by infiltration and recharge into groundwater, followed by release to surface waters. Lack of financial resources makes risk assessment through analysis of drinking water pollutants challenging for drinking water suppliers. Inability to identify agricultural lands with a high-risk level and implement action measures might lead to public health issues. As a result, it is essential to identify hazards and conduct risk assessments even with limited data. This study proposes a risk assessment model for agricultural activities based on available data and integrating various types of knowledge, including expert and literature knowledge, to estimate the levels of hazard and risk that different agricultural activities could pose to the quality of withdrawal waters. To accomplish this, we built a Bayesian network with continuous and discrete inputs capturing raw water quality and land use upstream of drinking water intakes (DWIs). This probabilistic model integrates the DWI vulnerability, threat exposure, and threats from agricultural activities, including animal and crop production inventoried in drainage basins. The probabilistic dependencies between model nodes are established through a novel adaptation of a mixed aggregation method. The mixed aggregation method, a traditional approach used in ecological assessments following a deterministic framework, involves using fixed assumptions and parameters to estimate ecological outcomes in a specific case without considering inherent randomness and uncertainty within the system. After validation, this probabilistic model was used for four water intakes in a heavily urbanized watershed with agricultural activities in the south of Quebec, Canada. The findings imply that this methodology can assist stakeholders direct their efforts and investments on at-risk locations by identifying agricultural areas that can potentially pose a risk to DWIs.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".