MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4318204200 · doi:10.3390/w15030489

Evaluating the Impacts of Environmental and Anthropogenic Factors on Water Quality in the Bumbu River Watershed, Papua New Guinea

2023· article· en· W4318204200 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Willie Doaemo, Mirzi Betasolo, Jorge F. Montenegro, Silvia Pizzigoni, Anna Kvashuk, Pandara Valappil Femeena, Midhun Mohan

Bibliographic record

VenueWater · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicChild Nutrition and Water Access
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersPapua New Guinea University of Technology
KeywordsWater qualityEnvironmental scienceWatershedSanitationWater resource managementTotal dissolved solidsTurbidityGeospatial analysisTotal maximum daily loadEnvironmental engineeringHydrology (agriculture)Environmental healthGeographyEngineeringRemote sensingEcologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Bumbu River Watershed is an essential source for the drinking and sanitation needs of settlement communities within Lae, Papua New Guinea. However, poor sanitation and waste management practices have led to concerns over the safety and integrity of the watershed’s resources. In this study, we explored the effect of these factors on water quality in the Bumbu river and its tributaries using water quality (22 sampling stations), geospatial (degree of urbanisation), and community survey (sanitation and hygiene practices) data. Water Quality Index (WQI) was calculated based on the Canadian Council of Ministers of Environment (CCME) template using pH, Total Dissolved Solids (TDS), conductivity, turbidity, alkalinity, calcium, magnesium, total hardness, mercury, manganese, iron, and Escherichia coli. Using geospatial techniques, principal component analysis, and forward regression analysis, we found that better water quality outcomes coincided with better community health conditions of Crime and Pollution, and better household health outcomes. Land-use itself was not significantly correlated with water quality, but distressingly, we found 19 of 22 water samples to be of “poor” quality, indicating a need for better community water regulation. The methodology and results presented can be used to inform policy decisions at the provincial/national level, and to aid future research activities in other watersheds.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.215
Threshold uncertainty score0.351

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations9
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWaterSame topicChild Nutrition and Water AccessFrench-language works237,207