Estimating Lithium Concentrations in Groundwater Used as Drinking Water for the Conterminous United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High Resolution Image Download MS PowerPoint Slide Lithium (Li) concentrations in drinking-water supplies are not regulated in the United States; however, Li is included in the 2022 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency list of unregulated contaminants for monitoring by public water systems. Li is used pharmaceutically to treat bipolar disorder, and studies have linked its occurrence in drinking water to human-health outcomes. An extreme gradient boosting model was developed to estimate geogenic Li in drinking-water supply wells throughout the conterminous United States. The model was trained using Li measurements from ∼13,500 wells and predictor variables related to its natural occurrence in groundwater. The model predicts the probability of Li in four concentration classifications, ≤4 μg/L, >4 to ≤10 μg/L, >10 to ≤30 μg/L, and >30 μg/L. Model predictions were evaluated using wells held out from model training and with new data and have an accuracy of 47–65%. Important predictor variables include average annual precipitation, well depth, and soil geochemistry. Model predictions were mapped at a spatial resolution of 1 km 2 and represent well depths associated with public- and private-supply wells. This model was developed by hydrologists and public-health researchers to estimate Li exposure from drinking water and compare to national-scale human-health data for a better understanding of dose–response to low (<30 μg/L) concentrations of Li.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".