MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2168069282 · doi:10.5539/ep.v1n1p69

Determination of Toxic and Trace Elements in Water Sediment and Vegetation in Topcamp Stream

2011· article· en· W2168069282 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
A. C. Achudume, Samson S Odoh

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironment and Pollution · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater Quality and Pollution Assessment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSedimentEnvironmental chemistryEnvironmental scienceWater qualitySurface waterTrace elementAquatic ecosystemHydrology (agriculture)ChemistryEnvironmental engineeringGeologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Human activities have continuously disturbed the natural aquatic ecosystem. The objective of the study was to determine some trace elements concentrations in water, sediments and vegetations in the impacted Topcamp stream. The study area lies between Latitudes 07°25'30'' N to 07°25'50'' and Longitude 003°2'00'' to 003°55'50'' E, a 3 km stretch of freshwater within metropolitan city. Single grab of surface water and sediment samples on sequential sites were studied. Vegetation samples, syndrella modiflora, were collected in the vicinity of the stream and analyzed. Results showed that the cation ions Ca and K were in excess of normal good quality water. The values of As, Cu, Cr, Fe and Zn were generally low and below the European Commission and WHO guidelines of drinking water quality. The trace elements concentration in the sediments, As, Cr, Cu, Fe, and Zn were elevated relative to water concentrations. The element concentrations in plant, syndrella nodiflora showed high moderate of Ca and Mg, low of As, Cr, P and Cd. Lead and Cd were below detection limit in water and sediment. When the sediment level of elements were compared to that of water, it is obvious that the residue levels of all heavy metals decreased indicating some capacity for assimilation.

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)0.000
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 score0.168
Threshold uncertainty score0.317

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironment and PollutionSame topicWater Quality and Pollution AssessmentFrench-language works237,207