Water Quality Index (WQI) of Shitalakshya River Near Haripur Power Station, Narayanganj, Bangladesh
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 present investigation is aimed at understanding the water quality parameters and the findings of a water quality index (WQI) to assess the characteristics of the Shitalakshya River near Haripur power station, Narayanganj for five different years (2013-2018) considering monsoon, pre-monsoon, post-monsoon seasonal variations. In this study, three different methods were used to evaluate the WQI named as; Weighted Arithmetic Index Method, Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) WQI Method and National Sanitation Foundation (NSF) Method. Essential parameters i.e. dissolved oxygen, pH, chloride, turbidity, color, biochemical oxygen demand, total dissolved solids, Silica, Iron, electrical conductivity, Phosphate were considered for calculating the WQI. According to Weighted Arithmetic Index Method, the WQI value varied from 80 to 286 for the last five years. From the National Sanitation Foundation Method, the WQI value was found within 36 to 56 for the study duration. The WQI value was varied from 3 to 16 according to the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment Water Quality Index Method. Based on WQI values, the Shitalakhya river water was being classified as poor water for the above-mentioned different years. Among the different parameters, mostly turbidity, electrical conductivity, TSS, Iron were the parameters that caused the situation worst. Journal of Engineering Science 12(3), 2021, 45-55
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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