MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2735798314 · doi:10.20286/jeas.v3i4.26

Database Software Development for Physico-chemical and Bacteriological Water Quality Parameters

2016· article· en· W2735798314 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Afed Ullah Khan, Fayaz Ahmad Khan, Jehanzeb Khan Jehanzeb, Qaiser Iqbal, Sajad Ali

Bibliographic record

VenueNova Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater Quality Monitoring Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDatabaseComputer scienceUploadData Transformation ServicesVisual BasicOracleSoftwareDatabase serverMicrosoft Visual StudioWorld Wide WebSoftware engineeringOperating systemQuery by Example

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A database is well thought-out set of information stored in a folder in well-organized manner. One can develop a significant database by means of variety database products including Microsoft structure quarry language (SQL) server, Microsoft Access, Microsoft Fox Pro and Oracle etc. This paper explains how to develop database software for water quality. The software was developed in Visual Basic.Net (VB.Net) using database product of Microsoft SQL server. This software will handle all kind of water quality testing data and will manage it in proper order. It will facilitate the user in further processing of water quality data. This software optionally stores all kind of water quality data whether it is physical, chemical or bacteriological. One can easily upload, edit and delete the data. It will facilitate the user to compare the water quality test data with World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines. This paper aims at showing that VB.Net is a good computer language which can be used for any purpose depending on the technicality of the user. Keywords: Database, VB.Net, Water Quality, Physicochemical, Bacteriological

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.120
Threshold uncertainty score0.191

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNova Journal of Engineering and Applied SciencesSame topicWater Quality Monitoring TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207