MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1929793522 · doi:10.1080/10256016.2015.1032960

Assessing sources of nitrate contamination in the Shiraz urban aquifer (Iran) using the δ<sup>15</sup>N and δ<sup>18</sup>O dual-isotope approach

2015· article· en· W1929793522 on OpenAlexaff
Haleh Amiri, Mohammad Zare, David Wîdory

Bibliographic record

VenueIsotopes in Environmental and Health Studies · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGroundwater and Isotope Geochemistry
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersShiraz University
KeywordsAquiferNitrateEnvironmental chemistryGroundwaterEnvironmental scienceDenitrificationSewageStable isotope ratioManureIsotopeNitrificationHydrology (agriculture)Environmental engineeringChemistryNitrogenGeologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nitrate ([Formula: see text]) is one of the major threats to the quality of the drinking water taken from the Shiraz aquifer. This aquifer undergoes high anthropogenic pressures from multiple local urban (including uncontrolled sewage systems), agricultural and industrial activities, resulting in [Formula: see text] concentrations as high as 149 mg L(-1), well above the 50 mg L(-1) guideline defined by the World Health Organisation. We coupled here classical chemical and dual isotope (δ(15)N and δ(18)O of [Formula: see text]) approaches trying to characterize sources and potential processes controlling the budget of this pollutant. Chemical data indicate that nitrate in this aquifer is explained by distinct end-members: while mineral fertilizers isotopically show to have no impact, our isotope approach identifies natural soil nitrification and organic [Formula: see text] (manure and/or septic waste) as the two main contributors. Isotope data suggest that natural denitrification may occur within the aquifer, but this conclusion is not supported by the study of other chemical parameters.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.164
Threshold uncertainty score0.557

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.202 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations18
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIsotopes in Environmental and Health StudiesSame topicGroundwater and Isotope GeochemistryFrench-language works237,207