Contamination severity index: An analysis of Bangladesh groundwater arsenic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article deals with the measurement of groundwater arsenic () contamination. The focus is on using a proper index for the severity of contamination, rather than just using the proportion of observations above a threshold level. We specifically focus on the contamination severity index (CSI) proposed by Sen (2016. Sankhya B , 78B(2), 341–361.). An alternative estimator in contrast to the one given by Sen (2016. Sankhya B , 78B(2), 341–361.) is used here which is useful for a small number of observations. The data used is that collected by the British Geological Society and the Bangladesh Department of Public Health Engineering during 1997–2001. Their analysis was based on the simple proportion of the observations above a threshold level, whereas the CSI measure adequately takes into account the severity of the observations. It is emphasized in this article that the comparison of areas with average arsenic () levels to determine arsenic severity is not appropriate in general due to a large variation in the sample values due to the depth of wells. However, an alternative to the CSI proposed in Sen (2016. Sankhya B , 78B(2), 341–361.) has been given in this article that takes into account the depth of wells corresponding to the samples. This article also uses the bootstrap methodology in assessing the bias and standard errors of the estimators, and the corresponding bias‐corrected and accelerated confidence intervals.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".