MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2606585462 · doi:10.1016/j.wsj.2017.03.002

Effect of physicochemical and biological parameters on the quality of river water of Narmada, Madhya Pradesh, India

2017· article· en· W2606585462 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nidhi Gupta, Pankaj Pandey, Jakir Hussain

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Science · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater Quality and Pollution Assessment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAmity University
KeywordsWater qualityTurbidityEnvironmental scienceHydrology (agriculture)MonsoonBiochemical oxygen demandNitrateEnvironmental engineeringChemical oxygen demandGeographyEcologyGeologyBiologyMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Narmada River is considered to be the holy river of the state Madhya Pradesh. A study was considered for the development of water quality index using eight parameters pH, Temperature, Total Dissolved Solids (TDS), Turbidity, Nitrate-Nitrogen (NO3-N), Phosphate (PO43−), Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD), Dissolved Oxygen (DO) measured at six different sites (S1–S6) along the river Narmada. Three methods (Weighted Arithmetic Water Quality Index, National Sanitation Foundation Water Quality Index and Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment Water Quality Index) were used for calculation of water quality index. This was observed that the water quality was found to be excellent to good in the season summer and winter and poor to unsuitable for human consumption in the season monsoon along the river Narmada. The fall in the quality of water in monsoon season was due to poor sanitation, turbulent flow, soil erosion and high anthropogenic activities.

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)0.001
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.280 · 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

Citations259
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWater ScienceSame topicWater Quality and Pollution AssessmentFrench-language works237,207