MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2089265751 · doi:10.1080/10256016.2013.729509

Evaluation of the origin of sulphate at the groundwater source Ključ, Serbia

2012· article· en· W2089265751 on OpenAlexaff
Nada Miljević, Djulija Boreli-Zdravković, Jovana Veličković, Dušan Golobočanin, Bernhard Mayer

Bibliographic record

VenueIsotopes in Environmental and Health Studies · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGroundwater and Isotope Geochemistry
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersScience and Engineering Research Board
KeywordsGroundwaterAquiferEnvironmental chemistryGeologyStable isotope ratioHydrology (agriculture)PyriteSulfateAlluviumWater wellEnvironmental scienceGeochemistryChemistryGeomorphology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The dual-isotope method of measuring both the δ(34)S and δ(18)O values of dissolved sulphate to assess the origin and fate of groundwater sulphate at the Ključ groundwater source, Serbia is applied. A sampling campaign was conducted in September 2007 during low-flow conditions, obtaining river water and groundwater from observation wells completed in a shallow aquifer formed in alluvial sandy-gravelly sediments. In the shallow groundwater, sulphate concentrations ranged from 56.2 to 165.0 mg l(-1). The δ(34)S values of sulphate varied from-5.5 to+3.0 ‰ and [Formula: see text] values from+1.4 to+4.2 ‰. Oxidation of pedospheric (organic soil S) and lithogenic sulphur sources (e.g. pyrite) were identified as the main causes for the increasing sulphate concentrations in the analysed groundwater. This study shows that combining hydrological, chemical, and isotopic techniques is a powerful approach to identifying sources and processes that control sulphate in water resources.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.233 · 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
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

Citations6
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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