Investigation of water quality in wet and dry seasons under climate change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Providing fresh water suitable for drinking and farming and living organisms in the ecosystem is essential. To evaluate water quality, qualitative indicators are often employed for managing water resources and water quality protection and pollution abatement. Aim: This study evaluated the quality of Borkhar basin water resources using three different water quality indices, including National Institutes of Health Water Quality Index (NIHWQI) having nine parameters, the Oregon Water Quality Index (OWQI) having eight parameters, and the Canadian Water Quality Indices (CWQI) with 22 main parameters. Material and methods: Using data for a period of 30 years, NIHWQI, OWQI and CWQI were used. To analyze water quality of the entire basin for current and future time. New findings: Results showed that water quality of the basin was in a very moderate range according to NSFWQI, and was in a very bad range accordingly to OWQI. Water quality forecasts showed that future water quality would be bad, based on OWQI and moderate based on NSFWQI, whereas based on CWQI, it will be good for drinking, and bad for aquatic animals, recreation, irrigation, and livestock use.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".