MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3116105903 · doi:10.2298/ijgi2003215j

Assessment of water quality during the floods in may 2014, Serbia

2020· article· en· W3116105903 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dejana Jakovljević

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Geographical Institute Jovan Cvijic SASA · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater Quality and Pollution Assessment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinistarstvo Prosvete, Nauke i Tehnološkog Razvoja
KeywordsWater qualityEnvironmental scienceTurbidityFlood mythRecreationHydrology (agriculture)Water resource managementNatural disasterIrrigationWater resourcesQuality (philosophy)GeographyEcologyMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Floods are considered to be the most common natural disaster which causes more destructive effects than other natural disasters including loss of human life, property and infrastructure damage, as well as a negative impact on social and economic development. Besides these consequences, floods also affect water quality. The aim of this paper is to present water quality impairment caused by the floods in Serbia in May 2014. The parameters of water quality were measured 13 times in 2014 (12 ordinary monthly measurements and one extraordinary measurement during the flood) in hydrological stations Ostruznica and Sabac (on the river Sava) and Badovinci (on the river Drina). The Canadian Water Quality Index (CWQI) was used for water quality assessment. This method calculates the overall water quality and the water quality for specific conditions and purposes including: drinking, aquatic habitats, recreation, irrigation, and livestock. Water quality decline was recorded in all the stations in overall water quality as well as for specific uses. Turbidity and heavy metals values were tens of times higher than normal ranges. The most drastic example was Al with the values which were thousand(s) of times higher than the objective.

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)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.769

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Citations10
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Geographical Institute Jovan Cvijic SASASame topicWater Quality and Pollution AssessmentFrench-language works237,207