MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416718881 · doi:10.14796/jwmm.c568

Exploration of Potential Groundwater Zones in Nambiyar Watershed, South India using Frequency Ratio and Multi-Influencing Models

2025· article· W4416718881 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
R. S. Libina, R. Jegankumar, K. Prakash, S. P. Dhanabalan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Water Management Modeling · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicGroundwater and Watershed Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGroundwaterLineamentHydrology (agriculture)WatershedDrainageGroundwater resourcesWater resourcesTopographic Wetness Index

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Groundwater potential is dynamic and fluctuates with respect to draft and recharge. The purpose of this study is to investigate the potential groundwater zones of the Nambiyar watershed in South India utilizing a probability-based bivariate statistical model frequency ratio (FR) and multi-influencing factor approaches (MIF). For this, spatial relationships between ten factors viz. slope, rainfall, lineament and drainage density, geology, geomorphology, soil texture, land use/land cover, well density, topographic wetness index, and groundwater occurrence were assessed. A total of 162 wells were selected for the study, of which 60% (97 dug wells) were used for training the model, and the remaining 40% (65 dug wells) were used for validating the results. The potential groundwater zones were classified into five categories: very low, low, moderate, high, and very high. Very high zones classified using the FR and MIF models are 186 km2 (28.03%) and 97.84 km2 (14%), respectively, whereas very low category areas are 63.29 km2 (9.50%) and 64.02 km2 (9.61%) of the watershed. The results were validated using well data by generating the AUC (area under the curve). The validated results revealed that the AUC for the frequency ratio model was 72%, while the MIF was 62%. This study explores potential groundwater zones using GIS and remote sensing techniques, benefiting government agencies and private sectors for better resource management.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.440
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.005
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Water Management ModelingSame topicGroundwater and Watershed AnalysisFrench-language works237,207