MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2945558431 · doi:10.25130/tjes.25.1.08

Evaluation of a Number of Water Treatment Plants in Kirkuk Governorate using the Water Quality Index

2018· article· en· W2945558431 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rodhan Abdullah Salih, Idan I. Ghdhban, AbdulRazaq Khader Abdul Wahid

Bibliographic record

VenueTikrit Journal of Engineering Sciences · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGroundwater and Isotope Geochemistry
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRaw waterTurbidityWater qualityWater treatmentEnvironmental scienceRaw materialPurified waterEnvironmental engineeringChemistryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A study was conducted on sixteen water purification plants in Kirkuk governorate to evaluate the treatment of water in them, where physical and chemical tests were conducted for raw water and treated water for a period of (6) months from December until May. Temperature, turbidity, pH, Total Dissolved Solid (TDS), Electric Conductivity (EC), alkali, Total Hardness (TH) and calcium (Ca+2) were measured. Water quality index Canadian method (CCME) was used to classify raw water quality and treated water. The results showed that the raw water for all stations was classified as category (4) (bad) during the study period. The treated water was different for the treatment plants. Two of the treatment plants recorded good efficiency in water treatment (AL-Shallalah plant and Sin AL-Thiban) the treated water remained in category (2) (good). While the water quality of AL-Mosanaa plant indicated that there was a problem in the treatment of water in this plant, the treated water remained in category (4) bad during the study period. Water quality index fluctuated for other plants during the study period. The study also showed that alkali values of all stations were higher than the allowable limit for raw water and treated water.

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)0.003
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.482
Threshold uncertainty score0.564

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 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 venueTikrit Journal of Engineering SciencesSame topicGroundwater and Isotope GeochemistryFrench-language works237,207