Applying Remote Sensing and Artificial Neural Networks for Water Quality Index Modeling in the Euphrates River
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Water Quality Index (WQI) is an effective water test that assesses water quality, identifies contaminants, and aids in decision-making.However, it is inefficient to analyze water samples in laboratories due to high costs, time-consuming processes, and limited ability to record temporal or geographical oscillations.Recently, the use of modern technologies such as Remote Sensing (RS) data, Geographic Information Systems (GIS), and Artificial Neural Networks (ANN), in combination with survey data, has confirmed an efficient tool to generate the WQI map of the Euphrates River in Ramadi, Iraq.In the present study, the RS data, such as Landsat 8 and Landsat 9 images, and laboratory tests of samples were used to develop a database for WQI based on spectral reflectance using the radial basis neural network model.The result of this model was then manipulated within ArcGIS 10.8 using the spatial analyst model to generate a digital map of WQI.This model was evaluated using seven criteria, which are correlation coefficient (r), mean absolute error, normalized mean absolute error, lowest absolute error, maximum absolute error, and root square equation of the coefficients (RMSE).The correlation value of the WQI was 0.93, which shows remarkable prediction accuracy.Therefore, this calculation method is effective in calculating the WQI and producing precise digital maps of water quality.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".