ArticleThe Science of the total environment2018
Assessing background levels of specific conductivity using weight of evidence.
Article in The Science of the total environment, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Predictive Modeling Reveals Elevated Conductivity Relative to Background Levels in Freshwater Tributaries within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, USA.ACS ES&T water · 2024Article
- A flow-chart for developing water quality criteria from two field-based methods.The Science of the total environment · 2018Article
- A field-based characterization of conductivity in areas of minimal alteration: A case example in the Cascades of northwestern United States.The Science of the total environment · 2018Article
- A field-based model of the relationship between extirpation of salt-intolerant benthic invertebrates and background conductivity.The Science of the total environment · 2018Article
- Assessing background levels of specific conductivity using weight of evidence.The Science of the total environment · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
There are many ways to estimate background levels, and many types of evidence may contribute to determining whether a water, air, or soil is at background. As a result, it is important to define background in each case and to weigh the available evidence to determine the best estimate of background. A weight-of-evidence approach is demonstrated that assesses whether the background SC is sufficiently similar in streams of Ecoregion 70 in West Virginia and Ohio. During planning, five relevant considerations were identified to assess background SC: physical properties, measured SC, spatial distribution of low SC sites, biological properties, and data relevance and reliability. For each consideration, diverse types of evidence were generated, evaluated, and synthesized using weight of evidence. In the example, evidence was weighed for the hypothesis that background SC is similar in two areas in Ecoregion 70, the Western Allegheny Plateau in the eastern United States. Where, as in this case, background is not well characterized by measurements, because data sets are small or sampling designs or anthropogenic inputs may influence estimates of background, it is suggested that information about regional properties, related to and affected by SC, may be used to determine whether SC in the less characterized area is sufficiently similar to a well characterized area.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.