MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3161632419 · doi:10.18280/ijdne.160202

New Regression Model for Estimating Irrigation Water Quality Index

2021· article· en· W3161632419 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Riyadh Jasim Mohammed Al-Saadi, Abdul Khider Aziz Mutasher, Aysar Tuama Al-Awadi

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater Quality and Pollution Assessment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGroundwaterIrrigationEnvironmental scienceIndex (typography)Regression analysisWater qualityGroundwater modelQuality (philosophy)Environmental engineeringLinear regressionHydrology (agriculture)MathematicsStatisticsGroundwater rechargeEngineeringComputer scienceAgronomyAquiferGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The common tool to evaluate the groundwater quality is so-called the Irrigation Water Quality Index (IWQI). In the present study, the IWQI model developed by Meireles is used to assess the quality of groundwater in Karbala - Najaf plateau, Iraq. The quality parameters that collected from groundwater tests of 78 wells in the study area are; EC, Na+1, Mg+2, Ca+2, Cl-1, and HCO3-1. The SPSS software program is employed to develop a non-linear regression model of the IWQI for the study area. The results show that the IWQI values for 90% of groundwater wells fall within the Severe Restriction (SR) category, which means that it’s only suitable for irrigation of high salt tolerance crops. While its remaining 10% of the wells are in the High Restriction (HR) category, and this means it is suitable for irrigation of moderate to high salt tolerance crops. The calibration and validation for the developed model presented that this model has a good estimation of the IWQI values. Due to flexible and unbiased, the current study recommends to use the proposed model to estimate the IWQI.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.674
Threshold uncertainty score0.251

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations5
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Design & Nature and EcodynamicsSame topicWater Quality and Pollution AssessmentFrench-language works237,207