MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3096379690 · doi:10.46390/j.smensuen.23220.432

CWQI index as quality indicator of surface water - An approach on the Olt River, Romania

2020· article· en· W3096379690 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Claudia Şandru, Mihaela Iordache, Andreea Maria Iordache, Roxana Elena Ionete, Ramona Zgavarogea

Bibliographic record

VenueSMART ENERGY AND SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater Quality and Pollution Assessment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceWater qualityDrainage basinIndex (typography)Hydrology (agriculture)PollutionSurface waterWork (physics)Water resource managementEnvironmental engineeringGeographyGeologyCartographyComputer scienceEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This work aims at assessing the pollution degree of the Olt River (Romania), based on the Canadian Water Quality (CWQI) index, by monitoring twenty twos locations along the middle and south part of the river basin for a period of four months, from March to October, during 2018. A comprehensive physico-chemical analysis involving major cations (Ca2+, Mg2+, Na+), anions (Cl-, SO42-, N-NO3--) and general parameters (pH, electrical conductivity, total dissolve solids) was performed for this purpose. Results demonstrated that CWQI values classified the water in the investigated sectors of the river as fair (values ​​between 66.08 to 79.05), marginal (56.22 to 64.63) and good (value of 85.60). This method appears to be more systematic and provide comparative evaluation of the water quality in different seasons of the year. The results showed that there is a large variations in the parameters in different sections of the river due to different anthropogenic factors. Therefore, this index may be helpful as marker for the public to better understand the quality of water, but also as tool for water quality management.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.668
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSMART ENERGY AND SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENTSame topicWater Quality and Pollution AssessmentFrench-language works237,207