MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3103994961

Geospatial assessment of groundwater quality using Water Quality Index and Inverse Distance Weighted techniques

2020· article· en· W3103994961 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Shumaila Majeed, Ambreena Javaid, Sara Gul, Nimra Farooq, Maham Tahir

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Environmental Science · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicGroundwater and Watershed Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGroundwaterWater qualityTurbidityEnvironmental scienceHydrology (agriculture)Water resource managementGeospatial analysisIndex (typography)Surface waterEnvironmental engineeringGeographyGeologyGeotechnical engineeringCartography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Groundwater is the main source of domestic and industrial activities in the city of Lahore and Kasur due to meagre resources of surface water. The current study was conducted to investigate the groundwater quality for drinking purpose and to identify the hydrochemistry of groundwater using Canadian Council of Ministers for the Environment Water Quality Index and Gibb’s graph. 40 water samples were taken from different areas of Lahore city and 19 samples were collected from Kasur city. These samples were tested by 15 physiochemical parameters (pH, EC, TDS, TH, Turbidity, HCO3, Cl, Ca, K, Mg and Na) and heavy metal (Zn, Cu, Fe and As). According to water quality index model results, groundwater of Lahore city lie between excellent to the marginal category, whereas the groundwater of Kasur fall under good to poor category. Evaporation and rock water interaction influence were dominant in both of the study areas, which clearly indicates the interaction between rock and percolated water geochemistry. It is recommended that the government should install more tube wells at a considerable depth to ensure contamination free and excellent drinking water at the consumer’s end

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.351
Threshold uncertainty score0.951

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.285 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Environmental ScienceSame topicGroundwater and Watershed AnalysisFrench-language works237,207