MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1974867178 · doi:10.4236/jep.2011.23035

On the Current and Restoration Conditions of the Southern Iraqi Marshes: Application of the CCME WQI on East Hammar Marsh

2011· article· en· W1974867178 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Protection · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTransboundary Water Resource Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMarshSalt marshCurrent (fluid)Environmental scienceWater qualitySalinityHydrology (agriculture)EcologyOceanographyWetlandBiologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Water quality of the East Hammar marsh after restoration was assessed by using the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment Water Quality Index (CCME WQI).The model was applied in two approaches based on the historical data and the CCME aquatic life guidelines as objectives. Variables included in the index calculation were Water Temperature, Dissolved Oxygen, Salinity, pH value, Total Nitrogen, Ammonia, Nitrate, Phosphorus and Sodium. The CCME WQI analysis in both approaches reflected that water quality of the East Hammar marsh is rated as poor based on 2005-2006 data, meaning that the conditions of the marsh are often depart from natural or desirable levels particularly in respect to sodium and nitrogenous compounds; it simply has not recovered yet. The results reflect that the marsh area is still far from the current guideline criteria and, too far from restoration.

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.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.783
Threshold uncertainty score0.317

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.198 · 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