MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2777598491

An Overview of Saturation State of Groundwater with Respect to Some Common Minerals in South Central Ontario

2017· article· en· W2777598491 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mezmure Haile-Meskale

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGroundwater and Isotope Geochemistry
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHaliteSaturation (graph theory)Groundwater rechargeDolomiteGroundwaterAquiferCalciteGeologyMineralogyHydrogeologySoil scienceEconomic geologyHydrology (agriculture)GypsumGeotechnical engineeringMathematics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines the saturation state of the groundwater within the South Central Ontario.  An Excel Spread sheet methodology has been employed to calculate saturation states with respect to calcite, dolomite, gypsum and halite.  Having revealed the different factors involved, the methodology was tested on some selected samples within laboratory error +/- 2%.  When the results were compared with Langelier index (LI) and with the PhreeqC codes, the methodology was found to be consistently accurate for fixed electrical charges (not requiring Eh data), and with low to moderate ionic strengths. It can be understood from this study that, when saturation indices are extracted from large database and plotted on maps, they can be very useful  in quickly observing spatial variability of saturation states that could be related to groundwater flow systems, including chemistry of formations (aquifers) and their variability with depth of wells or  recharge/discharge conditions.

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 score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.125

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied ResearchSame topicGroundwater and Isotope GeochemistryFrench-language works237,207