MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2549802409 · doi:10.30684/etj.33.4a.6

Evaluating Water Quality of Mahrut River, Diyala, Iraq for Irrigation

2015· article· en· W2549802409 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Abdul Hameed Al-Obaidy, Eman Shakir, Abbas J. Kadhem, Athmar A. Al Mashhady

Bibliographic record

VenueEngineering and Technology Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater Quality and Pollution Assessment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIrrigationSodium carbonateEnvironmental scienceWater qualityCarbonatePollutionSodiumHydrology (agriculture)River pollutionWater resource managementEnvironmental chemistryWater pollutionChemistryGeologyAgronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Water Quality of Mahrut River, passing through Muqdadiyah, a city in Diyala, Iraq, was evaluated for irrigation using the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment Water Quality Index (CCME WQI). Water samples were collected from six sites during two seasons, summer and winter in 2010-2011. Index scores were determined for fifteen constituents (pH, EC, HCO3, Cl, Sodium Absorption Ratio (SAR), Soluble Sodium Percentage (SSP), Residual Sodium Carbonate (RSC), Cd, Cr, Cu, Fe, Pb, Mn, Ni and Zn). The results of the calculated CCME WQI indicated that water quality of Mahrut River was marginal condition for irrigation in the 1st site while it was poor condition in the other sites. It is suggested that monitoring of the river is necessary for proper management to solve pollution problems in the river system.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.269 · 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

Citations20
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEngineering and Technology JournalSame topicWater Quality and Pollution AssessmentFrench-language works237,207