ASSESSMENT OF RIVER WATER QUALITY IN THE CITY BY HYDROCHEMICAL INDICES (THE OKHTA RIVER, ST. PETERSBURG)
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Okhta River water quality was assessed in the period 2016–2020 using the component- wise assessment method and three hydrochemical indices (Water Pollution Index (WPI), Specific Combinatorial Water Pollution Index (SCWPI), and Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment Water Quality Index (CCME WQI)). The component-wise assessment demonstrated that the pH was neutral or slightly alkaline, and water hardness was low. Dissolved oxygen deficit was observed at most stations during the entire research period. The content of dissolved oxygen declined downstream along the river. At the river mouth, the oxygen situation is slightly better due to the inflow of the Neva River water. The BOD5 exceeded the MPC at all sampling stations, suggesting the Okhta River water was polluted with readily oxidizable organic matter. The iron content in the water exceeded the MPC manifold. An elevated content of various forms of nitrogen was also revealed. Over the entire observation period, increased concentrations of oil products were constantly recorded (exceeding MPC more than 50‑fold in different years). The Okhta River water was characterized as “dirty” and “extremely dirty”, and the water quality was “poor” according to the calculated values of the indices – WPI, SCWPI and CCME WQI. The methodology of the little-known in Russia CCME WQI is considered separately. It was compared with the WPI and SCWPI. The relationship between the indices is clarified. The use of CCME WQI for surface water quality assessment along with SCWPI is recommended.
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.
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it