MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413388963 · doi:10.1016/j.dwt.2025.101393

A bibliometric review of smart technologies: IoT and AI for sustainable and efficient desalination

2025· article· en· W4413388963 on OpenAlexaff
Achraf El Allaoui, Loubna El Ansari, Atae Semmar, Wafaa Dachry, Hassan Gziri, Hicham Medromi

Bibliographic record

VenueDesalination and Water Treatment · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater Quality Monitoring Technologies
Canadian institutionsFrancophone University Association
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDesalinationInternet of ThingsEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceProcess engineeringEngineeringEnvironmental engineeringEmbedded systemChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The scarcity of freshwater, driven by population growth, climate change, and industrial expansion, has rendered seawater desalination an essential solution for addressing global water challenges. Nonetheless, traditional desalination methods face significant obstacles, including high energy consumption and environmental consequences from brine disposal. This study examines how IoT and AI technologies can enhance desalination systems, highlighting growing academic interest between 2011 and 2024 in improving their efficiency, energy consumption, and sustainability. This study demonstrates that integrating IoT sensors and AI-driven analytics into desalination systems can lead to substantial operational improvements. Real-time monitoring of key factors, like temperature, pressure, and CO2 levels, combined with predictive maintenance and adaptive control through AI. The study focuses on three main areas: energy optimization, sustainable brine handling, and advanced membrane technologies, showing how IoT and AI can improve desalination. Although countries like India, Spain, and Saudi Arabia have led progress, challenges remain, including high costs and limited global cooperation. This study introduces a streamlined model that integrates sensor and analytics systems to key plant performance metrics, such as energy use, uptime, fouling, and brine.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaBibliometrics
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptBibliometrics
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesBibliometrics
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.941
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0590.106
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.278 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical · Review

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

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDesalination and Water TreatmentSame topicWater Quality Monitoring TechnologiesCategoryBibliometricsFrench-language works237,207