MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2785077605

Water Quality I ndex of 11 Streams Pouring into Um-Alnaaj Marsh

2014· article· en· W2785077605 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mohammed Alsaad

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater Quality and Pollution Assessment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSTREAMSMarshWater qualityArtGeographyEnvironmental scienceEcologyWetlandBiologyComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper assesses the water quality index of 11 streams (rivers) and the receiving UM- AL NAAJ marshland at Misan governorate and how the water quality is improved when entered the marshland. The assessment employ the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment Water Quality Index (CCME WQI) which incorporates three elements: Scope (F 1)- the number of water quality parameters not meeting water quality objectives; Frequency (F 2)- the number of times the objectives are not met; and Amplitude (F 3)- the extent to which the objectives are not met. The index produces a number between 0 (worst) to 100 (best) to reflect the water quality. Iraqi guidelines for drinking water and the site-specific measured values of 5 variables are used in the index calculation.Variables included in the index calculation were, water temperature, dissolved oxygen, total dissolved solids, pH, turbidity. The CCME WQI analysis show that the average water quality of the 11 streams, feeding Um- Alnaaj marshland is rated as fair based on 2010 data, meaning that the conditions of the streams were sometimes depart from natural or desirable levels while the quality of water inside the marsh was ranging from good to excellent.

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 score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.099

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 head0.220
GPT teacher head0.539
Teacher spread0.319 · 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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)Same topicWater Quality and Pollution AssessmentFrench-language works237,207