ASSESSMENT OF THE WATER QUALITY INDEX OF THE MAIN DRAIN, IRAQ
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are ten monitoring stations along the Main Drain course from Baghdad to Basrahcities, they were used to assess the water quality spatially and temporally. The assessment was achieved by measuring seventeen physical and chemical variables of the water quality. The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment Water Quality Index was applied in this study based on three specific international guidelines.The results depict that the quality of the drinking water of the Main Drain can be classified as poor water because it ranges between (14.75% – 46.34%) in all river stations except in station 1 in Baghdad. This considered as marginal indicating worst quality in river water that caused by the discharges of pollutants from agricultural runoff, sewage, domestic wastes to the water system without any treatment. Based onthe WQI results for irrigation, which ranged from 11.65% to 50.75%, most water stations in river have poor classification except station 2 of Baghdad and 3 of Babylon that can be classified as marginal type.The WQIof the Main Drainfor Maintenance River Systems No.25 at 1967 can be classified as marginal in Babylon and poor in Dewaniyawith (3.57% and 50.5%), respectively. The extreme using of fertilizer, pesticides and agricultural effluent towards the Main Drain River deteriorates its quality especially at downstream stations. These results confirmpotential pollution of the Main Drain, so it is necessary to control the agriculturaland human activities to obtain a good program of the best operation of the main branched drains.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".