MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4385693239 · doi:10.32920/23915430.v1

An analysis of the sample size requirements for acceptable statistical power in water quality monitoring for improvement detection

2023· preprint· en· W4385693239 on OpenAlexafffund
Christopher Wellen, Philippe Van Cappellen, Larissa Gospodyn, Janis L. Thomas, Mohamed N. Mohamed

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil and Water Nutrient Dynamics
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaUniversity of WaterlooMinistry of the Environment, Conservation and ParksToronto Metropolitan University
FundersEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
KeywordsStatistical powerSample size determinationStatisticsWater qualitySample (material)Environmental scienceComputer scienceSampling (signal processing)Reliability engineeringHydrology (agriculture)Operations managementMathematicsEngineeringEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many water quality managers seek to demonstrate reductions in pollutants after a remedial program or policy change of some sort is implemented, but there is little information in the literature to help guide the extent of water quality sampling that is required to be confident that a change has occurred. Statistical power refers to the likelihood of avoiding a Type II error in hypothesis testing. It is critical to examine statistical power levels to ensure results are not unduly influenced by insufficient quantity of data. This study presents the first published record, to the best of our knowledge, on sample size requirements to achieve acceptable levels of statistical power in hypothesis testing of annual water quality (nutrients) in streams. We examined 13 temperate agricultural watersheds spanning a gradient of size from 11 to 16,000 km2 using data synthesized from long-term flow and water quality records. We found that achieving commonly accepted levels of statistical power (0.8) after reductions of 20% in load or flow-weighted mean concentration (FWMC) required an inordinate quantity of data (50–250 years for load, 10–120 years for FWMC), while achieving statistical power of 0.8 after reductions of 80% of load or FWMC required very little data (2–4 years for FWMC, 2–7 years for load). Load reductions of 40% required a range of 8–50 years of data depending on analyte, while FWMC reductions of 40% required 3–10 years of total phosphorus (TP) data, 5–25 years for soluble reactive phosphorus (SRP), and 2–6 years for nitrate (NO3). We examined relationships among times to achieve statistical power and a number of common landscape descriptors (discharge, baseflow index, basin size, concentration-discharge slope) and found no discernable relationships for either TP or SRP, whereas catchments with higher baseflow indices were found to have lower data requirements for achieving statistical power of 0.8 for NO3. We also show through subsampling experiments that higher frequency sampling tended to reduce data requirements to achieve acceptable statistical power, though these gains diminish as the sample frequency increases. The information presented will help those tasked with watershed monitoring to design appropriate sampling regimes to ensure adequate data are obtained to detect change.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.401
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.687
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.401
Threshold uncertainty score0.739

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.4010.687
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.008
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.297 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoil and Water Nutrient Dynamics→French-language works237,207→