MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Quantifying Canadian Water Quality Index in Alhindya Barrage, Euphrates River

2020· article· en· W3043649847 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ali Hassan Hommadi, Abdul‐Sahib T. Al‐Madhhachi, Ali Al-Fawzy, Rana Abdel Qader Saleh

Bibliographic record

VenueIOP Conference Series Materials Science and Engineering · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater Quality and Pollution Assessment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTurbidityEnvironmental scienceWater qualityHydrology (agriculture)IrrigationWater resource managementGeologyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Recently, water quantity is decreasing due to high temperatures in summer and reducing the water quotas of Euphrates River in Iraq from the neighboring countries. These factors may increase turbidity and concentration of elements in Euphrates River especially near Alhindya Barrage, Babylon Governorate, Iraq. Thus, Euphrates River may not be valid for drinking and irrigation purposes in upstream of Alhindya Barrage. The aim of this study was to investigate the water quality upstream of Alhindya Barrage, Euphrates River, using Canadian Water Quality Index (CWQI). The comparison of water quality was investigated in the years of 2008 and 2009 according to data availability. Statistical analysis were performed on measured flowrates and indicated that there is a statistically significant difference between measured flowrates for 2008 and 2009. The results showed that the CWQI of 2008 was 94 which is good to excellent water quality, compared to CWQI of 79 for 2009. This was due to reduction in mean water quantity from 370m 3 /s of 2008 to 213m 3 /s of 2009. The global warming phenomenon is the main reason for dry seasons and low rainfall intensity and caused bad water quality.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.300
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.211 · 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.

Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIOP Conference Series Materials Science and EngineeringSame topicWater Quality and Pollution AssessmentFrench-language works237,207