A Canadian Water Quality Guideline-Water Quality Index (CCME-WQI) based assessment study of water quality in Surma River
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Water quality of Surma River is frequently deteriorating for the last few decades since ever-growing human activities, poor drainage facilities, and direct disposal of industrial and municipal waste. Along with poor structure, natural canals (local name Chara) are responsible for the conveyance of surface runoff from its urban catchments to the receiving Surma River. The purpose of this study is to assess the degree of pollution in context of CCME-WQI (Canadian Water Quality Guideline-Water Quality Index) in Surma River by determining various physico-chemical parameters. Data from sample analysis, the concentration of DO (Dissolved Oxygen), BOD (Biochemical Oxygen Demand), TSS (Total Suspended Solid), Turbidity and Fe (Iron) do not meet the satisfactory level. Particularly this study suggested that water quality of this river is affected for high turbidity and BOD due to soil erosion, runoff and municipal effluent discharge without any treatment. Beside these, concentration of heavy metals in Surma River is a bit high which poses another impact for the user of Sylhet city whom are mainly dependent on Surma River. Surma River is found to 15.78 according CCME-WQIs model which indicates that water quality of this river near Sylhet city is Poor and frequently impaired. Key words: Natural canals, Surma River, pollution, solid waste, disposal.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it