Evaluation of surface water quality using water quality indices (WQIs) in Lake Sukhna, Chandigarh, India
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
Abstract To assess the surface water quality of Sukhna Lake, 13 physico-chemical parameters like temperature, pH, transparency, dissolved oxygen, electrical conductivity, total dissolved salts, chloride, total Aalkalinity, total hardness, calcium, magnesium, nitrate and phosphate were investigated on monthly basis for a period of two year (July 2016–June 2018) by using standard procedures. The results were compared with the values or ranges mentioned by standard organizations (WHO and BIS) for assessing the water quality and these revealed that the lake water was turbid and under DO distress. Various water quality indices like water quality index (WQI), Canadian Council Ministry of Environment (CCME)-WQI and comprehensive pollution index (CPI) were used to assess the water quality status in the Sukhna Lake. The range of WQI (59.74–83.49) indicated that the water quality status of the lake belonged to good category while those of CCME-WQI (52.4–81.61) revealed that water quality fallen from marginal to good category and those of CPI (0.4–0.7) indicated fair state of water in the lake. Overall the water quality in Sukhna Lake has been found deteriorated during second year in comparison the first year during the study time.
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 | 0.018 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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