The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Kriging Method Evaluation for Assessing the Spatial Distribution of Urban Soil Lead Contamination
Abstract
Describing contaminant spatial distribution is an integral component of risk assessment. Application of geostatistical techniques for this purpose has been demonstrated previously. These techniques may provide both an estimate of the concentration at a given unsampled location, as well as the probability that the concentration at that location will exceed a critical threshold concentration. This research is a comparative study between multiple indicator kriging and kriging with the cumulative distribution function of order statistics, with both local and global variograms. The aim was to determine which of the four methods is best able to delineate between “contaminated” and “clean” soil. The four methods were validated with a subset of data values that were not used in the prediction. Method performance was assessed by calculating the root mean square error (RMSE), analysis of variance, the proportion of sites misclassified by each method as either “clean” when they were actually “contaminated” or vice versa, and the expected loss for each misclassification type. The data used for the comparison were 807 topsoil Pb concentrations from the inner‐Sydney suburbs of Glebe and Camperdown, Australia. While there was very little difference between the four methods, multiple indicator kriging was found to produce the most accurate predictions for delineating “clean” from “contaminated” soil.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Some aspects of the spline smoothing approach to non-parametric regression curve fitting
Silverman, B. W. (1985) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology · doi:10.1111/j.2517-6161.1985.tb01327.x · Cited by 1,117
Cited by
Flood risk assessment in metro systems of mega-cities using a GIS-based modeling approach
Lyu, H.-M., Sun, W.-J., Shen, S.-L., & Arulrajah, A. (2018) · Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.01.138 · Cited by 445
Horta, A., Malone, B., Stockmann, U., Minasny, B., Bishop, T. F. A., McBratney, A. B., Pallasser, R., & Pozza, L. (2015) · Geoderma · doi:10.1016/j.geoderma.2014.11.024 · Cited by 306
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Cattle, J. A., McBratney, A. B., & Minasny, B.
- Venue
- Journal of Environmental Quality
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2002-09
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1576-1588
- ISSN
- 0047-2425 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-2537
- OpenAlex
- W2058732687
- Cited by
- 175
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 4.37
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Kriging Method Evaluation for Assessing the Spatial Distribution of Urban Soil Lead Contamination. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2134/jeq2002.1576
- The paper
- Cattle, J. A., McBratney, A. B., & Minasny, B. (2002). Kriging Method Evaluation for Assessing the Spatial Distribution of Urban Soil Lead Contamination. Journal of Environmental Quality. https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2002.1576
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.