MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Water-Quality Assessment of the Langat River at Kilometre 7, Jalan Kajang-Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia

2009· article· en· W2620624740 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Muhammad Barzani Gasim, Mazen Jamil, Sahibin Abd Rahim, Mohd Ekhwan Toriman

Bibliographic record

VenueArab world geographer · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater Quality and Pollution Assessment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTotal suspended solidsBiochemical oxygen demandWater qualityChemical oxygen demandEnvironmental scienceTotal dissolved solidsSuspended solidsHydrology (agriculture)Environmental engineeringMain riverWastewaterGeographyDrainage basinEcologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Langat River is one of the main sources of water supply for the Selangor area. For water-quality analysis, water sampling was carried out at five stations during the wet (November 2009) and dry (February 2010) seasons. These five stations are located along the river, with the exception of station 3. Station 1 and station 2 are located upstream station 3, while station 4 and station 5 lie downstream of station 3. Station 3 differs from the other four stations because it is a discharge from Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia campus. This study was conducted to determine water quality as well as levels of pollution, based on the Water Quality Index (WQI) and the Malaysian Interim National Water Quality Standard (INWQS), of the Langat River at Km 7. A total of 14 water-quality parameters—temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen (DO), conductivity, chemical oxygen demand (COD), biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), total suspended solids (TSS), total dissolved solids (TDS), PO4, NO3-, NH3-N, SO4, oil and grease, and E. co...

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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.261 · 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

Citations11
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArab world geographerSame topicWater Quality and Pollution AssessmentFrench-language works237,207