MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3168695184 · doi:10.5539/mas.v15n3p31

Examination of the Quality Indicators of Haraz River Water, Inflow and Outflow of Water of Fish Farm

2021· article· en· W3168695184 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Azam Ali Khademi, Mahsa Najafi, Shahrzad Khoram nejadian, Babak Moghadas

Bibliographic record

VenueModern Applied Science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater Quality and Pollution Assessment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceWater qualityHydrology (agriculture)InflowOutflowNitratePollutionWastewaterEnvironmental engineeringEcologyGeographyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study was an attempt to examine the quality indicators of Haraz River water inflow and outflow of water of fish farms. This study aimed to prove and assess the water pollution status of Haraz River and investigate the impact of fish farms on river water quality. Sampling was performed in two seasons of summer and autumn of 2015 in seven stations of river water and inflow and outflow of farms water. Quality pollution index includes (temperature, phosphate, nitrate, nitrite, ammonia, electrical conductivity, BOD, COD, PH Were measured. Comparison of the results with the allowable values of Iran code and waste water standards showed that the factors in all samples and both seasons were in the allowable range and the rate of these indicators in autumn is higher than the summer. The amount of ammonia, carbon and total phosphate in summer is higher than the autumn. The findings of the results reveal that the proper quality and cleanliness of Haraz River water in the study area show that the activity of farms doesn’t have a significant effect on the quality index of Haraz River water.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueModern Applied ScienceSame topicWater Quality and Pollution AssessmentFrench-language works237,207