Assessment of the Present State and Future Fate of River Saraswati, India: Water Quality Indices and Forecast Models as Diagnostic and Management Tools
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Water quality assessment is key to the conservation and management of rivers. River Saraswati, a distributary of the river Ganga, serves as a lifeline to many villages in the district Hooghly in West Bengal, India. As the river is gradually dying due to diverse man‐made pollution, ten water quality parameters in two sampling spots (PR‐1 and PR‐2) in the river are monitored month‐wise from March 2017 to February 2020, and these are compared with those from a reference pond. The water quality index (WQI) is determined for the two riverine spots and the reference pond based on the Canadian Council of Ministers of Environment WQI (CCMEWQI) and weighted arithmetic WQI, respectively. In addition to actual observations, three different forecasting methods, exponential smoothing, autoregressive integrated moving average, and artificial neural network, are used to predict WQI for the next two years. This study indicates that free CO 2 , dissolved oxygen, and turbidity are the key parameters to evaluate this river's anthropogenic stress and health. The actual and forecasted results reflect the precipitous degradation of CCMEWQI in PR‐2. Therefore, the immediate intervention of all stakeholders is required to adopt an integrated and comprehensive river management plan to save the river from utter obliteration.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".