MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2904950751 · doi:10.36813/jplb.2.3.220-234

Status mutu air Kali Angke di Bogor, Tangerang, dan Jakarta

2018· article· id· W2904950751 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Siti Rosa Oktavia, Hefni Effendi, Sigid Hariyadi

Bibliographic record

VenueJurnal Pengelolaan Lingkungan Berkelanjutan (Journal of Environmental Sustainability Management) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageid
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater Quality Monitoring Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Masuknya bahan-bahan pencemar ke dalam badan air sungai menyebabkan turunnya kualitas air sungai. Salah satu sungai yang diduga telah mengalami pencemaran adalah Kali Angke. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menentukan status mutu air dan tingkat pencemaran Kali Angke menggunakan metode Indeks Pencemaran (IP) dan Indeks Canadian Council of Minister of The Environment (CCME). Pengambilan data kualitas air dilakukan pada lima segmen sebanyak 21 titik pengambilan contoh pada tanggal 2–4 Oktober 2017. Data sekunder kualitas air berasal dari Dinas Lingkungan Hidup Kota Bogor, Kabupaten Bogor, Tangerang Selatan, Tangerang, dan Jakarta Barat. Parameter kualitas air meliputi parameter fisika (suhu, TSS, dan TDS), parameter kimia (DO, BOD, COD, NO2-N, NO3-N, pH, total fosfat, Zn, minyak lemak, Hg, dan Cu), dan parameter biologi (fecal coliform dan total coliform). Indeks kualitas air CCME lebih mewakili kondisi perairan daripada Indeks Pencemaran. Tingkat pencemaran semakin meningkat dari hulu ke hilir dan dari tahun 2014 sampai 2016, kemudian menurun pada tahun 2017. Status mutu Kali Angke tergolong cemar ringan menurut IP dan tergolong buruk menurut Indeks CCME.

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 score0.262
Threshold uncertainty score0.520

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.002

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations7
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJurnal Pengelolaan Lingkungan Berkelanjutan (Journal of Environmental Sustainability Management)Same topicWater Quality Monitoring TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207