MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1962840914 · doi:10.14796/jwmm.r225-02

An Overview of Water Quality Issues in Cambodia

2006· article· en· W1962840914 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kim Irvine, Tom Murphy, M. Sampson, Va Dany, Stephen Vermette, Tao Tang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Water Management Modeling · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCambodian History and Society
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRanking (information retrieval)Human Development IndexIndex (typography)GeographyEconomic growthDevelopment economicsQuality (philosophy)Developing countryHuman development (humanity)Political scienceEnvironmental protectionSocioeconomicsBusinessEconomicsComputer scienceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cambodia is amongst the poorest countries in the world, ranking 130 of 175 countries in the 2002 Human Development Index, as reported by the United Nations (www.un.org.kh/rcsystem/). The GDP per capita in 2002 was US$275 (www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2732pr.htm). Life expectancy for men is around 54 and for women is 59, which reflects various factors, including high infant mortality rate and low living standards. Mortality due to waterborne diseases in Cambodia is high and is a situation that could be improved through better sanitary conditions and education. Cambodia also faces challenges related to population demographics (43% of the population is aged 15 or less) and the decimation of the skilled/educated sector of society during the Khmer Rouge period of 1975 -79 (Gottesman, 2003)). Estimates of the genocide vary, but Kiernan (1999) suggested about 1.67 million people, or 21% of the population perished during this period.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.081

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations21
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Water Management ModelingSame topicCambodian History and SocietyFrench-language works237,207