Water Quality Deterioration of Jinjang River, Kuala Lumpur: Urban Risk Case Water Pollution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Jinjang River is a branch of the Klang River, which today suffers from a decline in water quality resulting from agricultural and development activities. A study on the water quality of Jinjang River was conducted in both June and October 2011. The purposes of the study were to determine the water quality of Jinjang River based on physicochemical and biological parameters and to classify the Jinjang River based on National Water Quality Standards (NWQS) and the Water Quality Index (WQI). A total of five sampling stations were selected along the river; two stations (S1 and S2) represented the upstream region and another three stations (S3, S4, and S5) represented the downstream region of the river. Fourteen water-quality parameters were selected. As a result of the analysis, Jinjang River was categorized as a slightly polluted river (WQI) and was classified as Class III. The result, compared with the NWQS, showed that most of the water-quality parameters studied ranged from Class I to Class IV, except for biological parameters (Escherichia coli), which were classified as Class V. This indicates that the river was extremely contaminated with fecal coliform bacteria (E. coli).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".