MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2469124328 · doi:10.15415/jnp.2016.32020

The Status of Natural Radioactivity and Heavy Metals Pollution on Marine Sediments Red Sea Coast, At Safaga, Egypt

2016· article· en· W2469124328 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
M.A.M. Uosif, Shams A.M. Issa, Hesham M.H. Zakaly, Madlour Hashim, Mahmoud Tamam

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nuclear Physics Material Sciences Radiation and Applications · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicRadioactivity and Radon Measurements
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRadionuclideEnvironmental sciencePollutionNuclideHeavy metalsEnvironmental chemistrySedimentMangroveNatural radioactivityOceanographyGeologyChemistryEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Natural 226Ra, 232Th and 40K radio nuclides concentration in beach Sediments along Safaga coast of Red sea, Egypt has been carried out using a NaI (Tl) gamma ray spectrometric technique. The total average concentrations of radionuclides ± uncertainty of 226Ra, 232Th and 40K were 22.2 ± 1.7, 19.2 ± 2.5, and 477.6 ± 27.6 Bqkg-1, respectively. The total average absorbed dose rate is found to be 41.4 nGyh-1, whereas the annual effective dose rate has an average value of 54 μSvy-1. The total organic matter (TOC), carbonates (CaCo3) and Heavy metals distribution have been measured at some locations, the concentration for the investigated heavy metals overtake the allowable limits recommended by the Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines, this assigned to the ratio of metals pollution is caused by anthropogenic activities (phosphate shipment as in Abu Tartour harbor and navigation as in Touristic harbor) and or by natural impacts such in mangrove interment. Statistical analyses were carried out between the parameters obtained from the radioactivity to know the existing relations and to study the spatial distribution of radionuclide.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.707
Threshold uncertainty score0.939

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.308 · 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

Citations11
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nuclear Physics Material Sciences Radiation and ApplicationsSame topicRadioactivity and Radon MeasurementsFrench-language works237,207