Aquifer vulnerability mapping and GIS: A proposal to monitor uncertainty associated with spatial data processing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An aquifer assessment was undertaken by the Geological Survey of Canada to estimate the sustainability and aquifer vulnerability in the St. Lawrence Lowlands of south western Quebec. The DRASTIC model and GIS was used to calculate and produce vulnerability maps. A detailed monitoring of data processing was performed to control the accuracy of the vulnerability maps. Overall estimates involved identifying errors and uncertainty associated with spatial and descriptive data used to run the model. The data analysed was related to wells, drillings, thematic maps, and also multiple processing data including errors and uncertainty attributed to calculations of the hydraulic conductivity, data interpolations, intersections of spatial data layers, etc. A categorization system using the Unified Modeling Language (UML) was proposed to categorize spatial data with respect to the degree and sources of possible uncertainties. This article presents the categorization system used, an example of an application for an study area and a discussion around its usefulness in controlling data processing (GIS and model integration). This work shows that uncertainty associated with spatial data processing and integrating data to a numerical system can be very significant, the main ambiguity occurring when cleaning data, interpolating, classifying and overlaying. Uncertainty characterization on the data processes was a valuable source of information. Monitoring the uncertainty associated with spatial data processing is almost more important to assemble than the model itself. However uncertainty monitoring may be complex and subjective and in fact it is rarely done on a regular basis mainly because it requires much more efforts compare to simply running the model.
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 | 0.015 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".