Groundwater Quality Assessment Using Water Quality Index Technique: A Case Study of Kirkuk Governorate, Iraq.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The quality of groundwater is a global concern that is usually assessed using quality indices. The Canadian Water Quality Index (CWQI) alongside with Geographical Information system (GIS) were adopted to evaluate the quality of Kirkuk’s groundwater in terms of its suitability for drinking, irrigation, aquatic, recreational purposes, and livestock uses, in 60 wells within the time period of 2017 to 2019. The groundwater quality was assessed depending on Iraq’s and world health organization (WHO) guidelines. The Iraqi standards were used for drinking purposes. The WHO standards were used for irrigation, aquatic, recreational, and livestock purposes. Both standards were incorporated in CWQI Excel Spreadsheet to evaluate the groundwater quality for studied wells. Samples were collected and analyzed for 15 major parameters. According to the CWQI, groundwater samples obtained were classified as marginal in 2017 and 2018; while poor water for drinking was observed in 2019.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it