MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1838727068 · doi:10.3968/6398

Oil Pollutiona and Its Impact on Water Quality in Ibeno Community

2015· article· en· W1838727068 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nikereuwem Stephen Ekpenyong, Udeme Sunday Udofia

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in sociology of science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater Quality and Pollution Assessment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWater qualityBTEXTurbidityEnvironmental chemistryBenzeneChemistryPollutionPetroleumTolueneAnimal scienceEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental engineeringXyleneBiologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A comparative study on the impact of oil pollution on water quality in both the oil and non - oil bearing communities of Ibeno and Mbo respectively was conducted. The mean concentration of Pb, (0.20 mg/l) Cd (0.1 mg/l), Cr (0.10 mg/l) and Ni (<0.10 mg/l) were above the WHO recommended limits of 0.05 mg/l, (Pb) 0.005 mg/l (Cd), 0.05 mg/l (Cr) and 0.02 mg/l (Ni) for drinking and domestic water quality. The physicochemical properties in both oil (incident zone and non-oil (control zone) trialed below standards. The mean Ph (5.41) for incident zone and Ph (4.73) for control zone were below the recommended range of 6.5-8.5. BOD varied between 0.5 to 20 mg/l in the incident zone and 0.50 mg/l in the control zone. The Do ranged from 2.7 mg/l to 11.6 mg/l in the incident zone and a mean concentration of 6.4mg/l in the control zone whereas WHO (1993) recommended level is 5 mg/l. Turbidity was higher in all samples above WHO recommended level of 5NTU. The mean values for hydrocarbons (range between <0.003-0.004 mg/l for BTEX were generally below some local and international standards (0.01 mg/l for benzene, 0.7 mg/l for toluene). The regulatory limits (0.0002 mg/l) are stipulated by Department of Petroleum Resources DPR.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.552
Threshold uncertainty score0.983

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.019
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.211
GPT teacher head0.467
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in sociology of scienceSame topicWater Quality and Pollution AssessmentFrench-language works237,207