MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2353865489

Municipal Tap Water in the Urban Drinking Water Monitoring Pilots in Sichuan

2012· article· en· W2353865489 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jin Li-jian

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Preventive Medicine Information · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater Treatment and Disinfection
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTap waterEnvironmental scienceCapital cityQuarter (Canadian coin)Environmental healthEnvironmental engineeringGeographyMedicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective To provide evidence for improving the safety of drinking water by carring out monitoring network pilot of urban drinking water and understanding the hygienic status of the water.Methods The samples of municipal tap water were collected in 5 different grade cities,the monitoring data of the samples were evaluated and analyzed.Results The qualified rate of municipal tap water in experimental areas was 93.3% from July,2009 to June,2010.The qualified rate of individual indices was high,most indices qualified rate was above 99%.The qualified rate of general chemical indices was higher than sensory characteristical indices,microbial indices and disinfectant indices.The tap water of prefectural-level city had the highest qualified rate,the provincial capital city was lower,the lowest qualified rate of tap water was in county-level cities.The qualified rate of tap water in the third quarter of 2009 was lower than other three quarters.All the differences had statistical significance.Conclusion The qualified rate of municipal tap water in experimental areas is high,but most of the indices have substandard conditions in different degree.There is a certain degree of risk in drinking water,that should be paid attention.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.090

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Preventive Medicine InformationSame topicWater Treatment and DisinfectionFrench-language works237,207